RESBOTMTON

OF THE

Lslrbs of

'YJkLH«WM¥mSinrY''

Deposited by the
Linonian and Brothers Library

MODERN REPRESENTATIONS

LIFE OF JESUS.

THE

MODERN REPRESENTATIONS

LIFE OF JESUS.

FOUR DISCOURSES
DELIVERED BEFORE THE EVANGELICAL UNION AT HANOVER,
GERMANY,

By Dr. GERHARD UHLHORN,
FIRST PREACHER TO THE COURT.

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION,
By CHARLES E. GRLNNELL.

BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN, .AND COMPANY.
1868.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by
CHARLES E. GRINNELL,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

CAMBRIDGE:
PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON.

PEEFACE
BY THE TRANSLATOR.

•" I "HESE excellent discourses have been trans
lated because they present a fair, broad, and
clear view of the modern controversies concerning
the life of Jesus Christ, from a standpoint of super-
naturalism. It is hoped that their scientific array
of arguments may be of use to some who are already
familiar with their substance, and that their popular
form may serve to attract to divine learning some
who do not know the strength of the foundations
of the Christian religion.
The theology of the learned Author, so far as it is
indicated by these historical discourses, differs from
that of the translator ; but it does not interfere with
the historical purpose of the translation.
The original discourses are not furnished with
references to the pages, volumes, or editions of the
works of Kenan, Schenkel, or Strauss, from which

VI PREFACE.
quotations are made. The quotations have been
verified ; and it is thought that the addition to the
translation of definite references to the books criti
cised, with corresponding references to the English
translations of those books, may be of service. Ref
erences have' also been subjoined to those quota
tions in the notes which the translator has been able
to verify. The learned Author quotes the meaning,
but not the letter, of Kepler, Ritter, and Agassis.
The substantial quotations from Kepler and Ritter
are translated as given in the original Notes ; but
the translator has taken the liberty to substitute
Agassiz's own English words in place of a transla
tion of a paraphrase.
The editions referred to in the following pages
are — " Vie de Je"sus." Par Ernest Renan. Dou-
zieme Edition. Boston: De Tries, Ibarra, et Cie. —
" The Life of Jesus." By Ernest Renan. Trans
lated from the original Erench by Charles Edwin
Wilbour. New York: Carleton, 1864. — "Das Cha-
racterbild Jesu." Ein biblicher Versuch. Von Dr.
Daniel Schenkel. Dritte Auflage. Wiesbaden:
C. W. Kreidel's Verlag, 1864. — " The Character
of Jesus Portrayed." A Biblical Essay, with an Ap
pendix. By Dr. Daniel Schenkel. Translated from
the third German edition, with Introduction and
Notes, by W. H. Eurness, D.D. Boston: Little,

PREFACE. Vll
Brown, & Co., 1866. — "Das Leben Jesu, fur das
deutsche Volk gearbeitet." Von David Eriedrich
Strauss. Zweite Aufiage. Leipzig: P. A. Brock-
haus, 1864. — " A New Life of Jesus." By David
Friedrich Strauss. Authorized Translation, 2 vols.
London and Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate,
1865. C. E. G.
Lowell, Massachusetts,
May 1, 1868.

PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR.

T HAVE determined, only after repeated requests,
to publish the following discourses, which I de
livered this winter before the Evangelical Union.
It is with such discourses as with sermons : without
attributing any special value to them, one should
not withhold them from those who may wish to
read them in private, or to communicate them to
others. I have therefore left them, with unessential
alterations, just as they were. They are meant to
be -the same discourses which I delivered. It did
not seem to me to accord with the character of
such discourses, to furnish them with citations to
which I did not refer in the delivery. Since cita
tions are often only the expression of thanks to
those from whom one has learned something, these
thanks may here be generally expressed. Popular
discourses are not intended to impart new investi
gations : I wish simply to repeat to my hearers
what I myself have learned from others. It

X PREFACE.
seemed, however, to be well to add in the Notes
several things which the limited time of delivery
excluded from the discourses. The choice of these
additions rests in great part upon conversations
with my hearers, and their consequent requests.
May the Lord bless the printed word, as I hope
He has permitted the spoken word to be not with
out a blessing!
Hanovek, Feb. 8, 1866.

CONTENTS.

FIRST DISCOURSE.
PAGE
The Life of Jesus by Renan  1

SECOND DISCOURSE.
" The Character of Jesus Portrayed," by Schen
kel; "A New Life of Jesus," by Strauss . 34
THIRD DISCOURSE.
The Gospels  78
FOURTH DISCOURSE.
The Miracles  116

FIRST DISCOURSE.
THE LIFE OF JESUS BY RENAN.

SINCE the first days of the Church, when she
had to defend her faith against heathen cal
umny and heathen science, the attacks upon Chris
tianity and the Church have never been so manifold
and so powerful as at the present time. The con
test is no longer upon single questions, such as
whether this or that conception of Christianity is
the more correct; but the very existence of Chris
tianity is at stake. Though the final goal, the
destruction of Christianity and the Church, is
concealed in many of these assaults ; though they
pretend to undertake to lead back Christian faith
and life to its original purity and simplicity, — but
little acuteness is needed to perceive, that this is
mere show, — that they really attempt to set aside
that at least which has been known up to this time
as Christianity. But, thank God, there is also no
lack of defenders of the invaded sanctuary ; and it
can also be truly said, that at no time has the apol-
ogetical activity in the Church been so lively as at

"Z THE LIFE OF JESUS BY RENAN.
present. A whole literature of this tenor has grown
up of late years ; and in most of the larger cities of
our Fatherland, during this time, apologetical dis
courses have been orally delivered, certainly not
without a blessing.
It is true, one must avoid overvaluing such at
tempts at defence. The best defence is, and must
always remain, the simple, faithful preaching of the
gospel, and the real witness of the power of Chris
tianity in life and conversation. The most correct
course of defence is found upon the first page of the
Gospel, where Philip answers to the doubt of Na
thanael, " Come and see." But, even if Christianity
can be demonstrated to nobody, he who has seen
and experienced nothing of it can take nothing
from it. In spite of all that, however, apologetical
activity has in all cases great importance.
The circle in which books are read which have
undertaken to attack Christianity, is comparatively
small. No German work has had a circulation
approaching that of Renan's book in France ; and
how many have the time and desire to read through
such comprehensive writings as those of Strauss
and Schenkel ? How many there are who content
themselves with the knowledge of having it down
in black and white, that it is all over with Christian
ity ! But the circle is considerably greater in which
those writings have at least an indirect influence.
This influence is exerted through the periodical
press. The daily and weekly newspapers, and the
monthly magazines, take up the matter as one

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 3
adapted to the times, and communicate, in a brief
and popular way, to the greater public the pretend
ed results of those writings. Hence arises a kind
of public opinion upon the subject ; and an uncer
tainty, at least, widely prevails whether the founda
tions of Christianity are sound, — an uncertainty
which, from being more dangerous the less able one
is to investigate the questions, hinders many from
coming to Christianity. Now, as has been already
said, although we may be unable to demonstrate
Christianity to any one, we can nevertheless remove
such hindrances ; and it is our duty to do so.
From the pulpit this is a difficult, if not an im
possible, task ; for the service of public worship is
an occasion for building up the people in their faith,
and not for proving this faith in the first place.
Here the sermon itself must be prepared before
hand, since the preacher in writing and in speaking
avoids general controversy, and declares the sound
— yes, the scientifically and historically sound — con
firmation of the Christian faith. In writing and
speaking, I say ; for just here the living word has
great importance. As a sermon which is printed
and read is never so effective as one which is
spoken and heard, even if the latter is inferior to
the former in many points of matter and style, so
it is with essays of this kind. There is always
something dead in the letter, and it can never fill
the place of the living person. I would earnestly
entreat you to give the benefit of this remark to
me. I do not pretend to be able to give you much

4 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
that is new, which may not have been already said
elsewhere, and better than I can say it ; but I do not
believe that it is therefore sufficient to merely refer
you to printed essays and books upon the subject.
I think that the living word, even when it does not
comprehend so much, may be worth hearing.
The attacks upon the Christian faith, different as
they are, have essentially one aim, — which is, to set
aside the supernatural in Christianity, and with it
Christianity itself. Our people, as has been openly
enough declared, should be converted from the su
pernatural view of the world that has hitherto pre
vailed, to a purely natural view. No one can fail
to see, and our opponents least of all, that, if this
should succeed, Christianity would vanish. Let them
call what they shall put in its place Christianity, —
at least at first, to prevent simple souls, who are
not easily freed from prejudices, from being shocked
too soon, — Christianity will really no longer exist ;
for it is fundamentally and essentially supernatural.
It is faith in an act of God, who has taken this
earthly world in his grasp, and fulfilled the work
of redemption. The point where the supernatural
concentrates as it were, where it has its centre, is
the person of Jesus Christ, the God-man. There
fore it is perfectly natural that the chief attack is
directed against this point. The attack proceeds,
however, according to the whole character of the
present age, in historical array. The picture which
the Church has hitherto made of her Head, of Christ,
and has made unanimously, is represented as unhis-

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 5
torical. It is said to be proved, that Jesus of Naza
reth did not so live and act as the Church believes.
If this should be proved, it would destroy the his
torical foundation of Christianity ; and since Chris
tianity is not a system of doctrines, but simply faith
in the redemptive act of God, that has been revealed
in history, it would fall with its foundations.
Since I undertake to treat of the modern repre
sentations of the life of Jesus, — which, different as
they are, have the common aim to prove the Church's
representation of Christ to be unhistorical, and to
set up another in its place, which is pretended to be
historical, — it is necessary, for the sake of being
understood, to speak still further in the way of intro
duction. The appearance of such works as that of
Renan, and the like, naturally has a sudden effect
upon any one who is not familiar with the discus
sions concerning the beginning of the Christian
Church, which have been carried on with great
warmth, but for the most part in purely scientific
circles, during the last thirty or forty years. But
they are not at all novel ; their appearance has-been
long prepared for ; and it is of the greatest impor
tance in judging them to regard them in connection
with their antecedents, to consider their gradual
growth. In this very act there is a criticism. Every
thing sudden is somewhat startling ; but this effect
passes away when one learns the gradual approach
of the phenomenon. It gives us at the very outset
a certain confidence in the Church's representation
of Christ, when we look over the whole row of at-

6 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
tempts to set it aside, and see that each new attempt
begins in the same way, — to show that the preced
ing one is unsatisfactory. It is as if we heard at
the door the feet of them who shall come in to carry
out those also who lord it over the present day.
For this purpose I must lead you a generation
back, to the time when the appearance of the first
edition of the " Life of Jesus " by Strauss caused a
commotion in our Fatherland, similar to that which
the " Life of Jesus " by Renan has lately aroused
in France. At that time the old rationalism had
about lost its power in science. Only its last de
fenders occupied chairs in the university, and this
was also the amount of its force in the pulpit.
This old, or, as it is also called, vulgar rationalism,
held to the genuineness of the Gospels (passing
doubtfully over the Gospel of John, it is true), and
was, on the whole, decided that they were historical.
But, it said, they must be rationally interpreted.
The chief rules of this rational interpretation were
a many-sided accommodation on the part of the
Lord', and a naturalistic explanation of the miracles.
By means of these exegetical tricks, it could do
away with every thing supernatural, and still get
from the Gospels a perfectly natural picture of Je
sus which corresponded with their rational ideas.
Whatever there was in the words of the Lord that
exceeded the measure of sound human reason, was
explained as accommodation. It was said that in
such places Jesus only accommodated himself to
the ideas of his contemporaries ; when, for instance,

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 7
he declared himself to be the Messiah, and when he
taught the doctrines of angels and devils.
Yes, all that relates to the atonement is only an
accommodation to the sacrificial ideas of the Jews.
The miracles are altogether natural occurrences,
related in the style of Oriental fancy. If one strips
off the hull of this style, and only understands how
to read these Oriental stories, there remains a very
simple, not at all supernatural, often indeed a very
insipid, kernel within. Thus, for instance, the story
of the transfiguration amounts to this. Once, while
Jesus was having a consultation with two intimate,
confidential friends (who, by the way, play a very
large part in the rationalistic interpretations), the
first rays of the rising sun shone upon him. From
this the imagination of the disciples created the
transfiguration, and the presence of the two inti
mate friends led them to imagine Moses and Elias.
The turning water into wine was a wedding-joke of
Jesus, who had some wine, that was kept ready,
brought in at the nick of time. The shining of the
heavenly hosts on the fields near Bethlehem was a
phosphorescent phenomenon, if indeed it was not
merely the light from a large stable-lantern, as one
of the interpreters supposes. Thus the whole
appearance of Jesus was thoroughly natural. He
became a Jewish rabbi, the wise teacher of Naza
reth, whose doctrine, if one takes a rational view of
it, has always, it is true, been of great consequence ;
but its importance consists essentially in this, that
he first taught the truths which any one can get

8 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
from his own reason. It was gradually perceived,
however, that all this was untenable and unsat
isfactory. It could not be concealed, that the
evangelists were made to say very different things
from what they really said ; and, though rationalism
had always striven to hold fast the sinlessness of
Jesus, it became clear, that the accommodation at
tributed to Jesus was morally equivocal, and at least
a self-deception. The period of the vulgar rational
ism passed by. After the first thirty years of this
century, its rule was entirely overthrown. There
was opposed to it, on one side, a believing theology,
excited by the great experiences of the contest for
freedom, and advanced by the active service of
Schleiermacher ; on the other side, unbelief took
courses that were entirely new.
After these new roads had been pointed out for
some time from different quarters, Strauss, in his
" Life of Jesus," was the first to follow them out to
the end. Strauss opposed both sides, both the Church
doctrine and rationalism. According to his view,
the Gospels contain substantially no history ; neither
a history of supernatural events, as the Church doc
trine declares ; nor a history of natural events, as
rationalism declares : but merely myth, a wreath of
legends which the romance of the disciples bound
about the head of the Master. The prophecies of
the Old Testament afforded the special occasion for
this. It was supposed that these had been fulfilled
in Jesus of Nazareth ; and therefore tradition, with
its unintentional fiction, fabricated a whole list of

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 9
tales according to Old- Testament prophecies and
Old-Testament models. These tales certainly have
an historical appearance ; but they really contain less
of nothing than of history. For instance, since the ;
legend makes Moses give water to the people, the
Messiah must do more, — he gives wine. Hence
the story of turning water into wine. Since Moses
returns from the mountain with a shining face, the
legend concerning Jesus grows to the story of
.the transfiguration. Thus arose all the accounts
of the healing of the sick. This was expected of
the Messiah; therefore it was attributed to Jesus
in the legend. And since Elias had raised some
one from the dead, of course the Messiah can have
done no less. Take away every thing legendary, and
there remains hardly any thing that is historical.
The original stem, says Strauss, is so wrapped in
creeping plants of legend, that it is now scarcely to
be distinguished; and we really know hardly any
thing more about Jesus than that he lived, taught,
and finally died on the cross.
Thus the whole form of the Lord was enveloped
in mythical clouds. It is no longer known who he
was : this alone can be said with certainty, that he
was not, as the Church believes, God become man.
But Christianity, the Church, still exists : Strauss
cannot deny us this. Whence has this sprung?
To this question Strauss only repeats the purely
negative answer, — Not from supernatural causes.
Then from what natural causes ? This he cannot
tell; for the reiterated, monotonous derivation of

10 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
the New-Testament stories from the Old-Testament
models and prophecies, is far too dry to furnish the
most distant idea of the actual, concrete fulness of
life which then existed. By the pretended denial
of the supernatural origin of Christianity, Christian
ity itself has become inexplicable. We are wholly
in the dark ; and Strauss, instead of solving a riddle
for us, has given us a much harder one.
Every historical phenomenon must have a suffi
cient cause. To this rule, Christianity is no excep
tion. If it is asserted that the Church is mistaken
in assuming a supernatural cause, they who make
this assertion cannot escape the burden of proving
how Christianity sprung from merely natural causes.
So long as this remains unproved, they have accom
plished nothing, and can never avoid the necessity
of assuming supernatural causes where natural
causes are insufficient. That task is before us, to
accomplish which the so-called Tubingen school
worked so many years. Let us see with what re
sult. The late Professor Baur, of Tubingen, the chief
of the Tubingen school, which also bears his name,
once said, " Strauss tried to surprise the fortress,
and to take it by storm ; but it showed that it re
quired a regular siege." This siege Baur undertook,
with unceasing labor, with the greatest ingenuity,
and with untiring endurance. The trenches were
begun at a distance, to proceed gradually nearer to
the heart of the fortress. The Tubingen school
begins, not with the life and person of the Lord, but

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 11
with the apostolic and post-apostolic times. From
these times it proceeds to learn, that in the apos
tolic period there are traces of a twofold tendency,
both among the apostles and the Church at large, —
a Jewish-Christian side, and a freer Gentile-Christian
side. Formerly, it was assumed that this division,
broad as it was in apostolic circles, went no deeper,
did not disturb the unity of the Church ; that, on
the contrary, the extreme Jewish-Christian party
soon separated from the Church, and went into the
Ebionite heresy. But the Tubingen school declares
this division to have been the motive-power through
out the early times, extending far into the second
century ; and insists that in this contest it was that
Christianity gradually freed itself from Judaism.
Accordingly, the earliest history of the Church takes
about the following form : The primitive Church —
the original apostles, even Peter and John not ex
cepted — was thoroughly Jewish-Christian ; that is
to say, the Christians were really still Jews in all
their views and customs ; only distinguished from
the other Jews on the single point, that, while the
latter still expected the Messiah, the former declared
that he had already appeared in Jesus of Nazareth.
In other respects, this Jewish-Christianity was based
altogether upon the law and particularism : it knew
as little of justification by faith, as of the spread of
the kingdom of God among the Gentiles. Hence,
unless another tendency had made its appearance,
this Jewish Christianity would have remained a
mere phenomenon within the Jewish Church. This

12 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
other tendency appeared in Paul, who was the first
to effect the revolution from the religion of law to
the religion of freedom, from particularism to uni
versalism. The two tendencies were directly op
posed to each other, and there was no reconciliation
during the apostolic period. Paul's whole life was
a fight against Judaism ; and, it must be added, a
fight to no purpose: he was worsted by Judaism.
It was in the post-apostolic period that the contro
versy became less intense. Each side gave up its
extremes, modified itself; and, through a series, of
transactions, the reconciliation was conducted to
perfect neutrality, to a treaty of peace, in the old
Catholic Church, with the formula, — Faith and
works, Peter and Paul. Most of the writings which
the Church, from the standpoint of this treaty of
peace, afterwards transferred back into the apostolic
period, and received into the canon, are only docu
ments of these transactions. The only writings of
genuine apostolic origin are the thoroughly Jewish-
Christian Revelation of John, and four Epistles of
Paul (Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Gala
tians). All the rest are partisan writings of one or
the other tendency, evidences of the conflict. Ten
dency, — that is now the magic word by which all
these writings are explained. Their tendency is
looked, for, whether Jewish-Christian or Pauline,
hostile or conciliatory, or entirely neutral ; and they
are ranked accordingly. The Gospels also are now
no longer, as Strauss tells us, products of the unin
tentional fiction of legend ; but plainly intentional,

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 13
partisan writings of the different factions, who
therein defend their views, and according to them
draw the portrait of the Lord. Thus Matthew is a
party-pamphlet on the Jewish-Christian side, Luke
is one on the Pauline side ; both, however, belonging
to a certain grade of the approaching reconciliation :
while Mark, the latest of the Synoptic Gospels, rep
resents the full neutrality.
But, I hear you ask, what has all this to do with
the person of Christ ? Little or nothing. Schweg-
ler, who made the first full and connected statement
of the views of the Tubingen school, wrote an essay,
pretending to discuss the origin of Christianity, in
which he alludes to Christ, only incidentally, in a re
mark, saying that it is not really known who he was,
and it can only be said, that he did not have a very
deep influence upon his disciples. This, it is true,
was afterwards modified by Baur. According to his
view, Christianity did really exist in Christ: but
this by no means settles the question ; for then Baur
discourses again about a deep gulf that lay between
the life of the Lord and the apostolic period.
Granted that Christianity existed in Christ, the dis
ciples, nevertheless, were extreme Judaizers, were
really still Jews and not Christians. Consequently,
Christ is not the actual founder of Christianity.
But who is ? One thinks of Paul ; but that does not
suffice, for Paul also was defeated. The fact is,
Christianity had no founder, and no definite begin
ning. It was of gradual formation: it gradually
freed itself from Judaism by a series of transactions,

14 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
and in this process must we seek for the true
origin of Christianity, — we ourselves do not know
where or how. This school, generally, does not
make much account of persons and personal influ
ence. Baur says, somewhere, " Persons are mere
names, — they are merely the bearers of the ideas ;
and in this consists their only influence. Persons
are nothing : the idea is all."
The Tubingen school has fallen to pieces, and
exists no more. After the death of its master, it
was outwardly broken ; and since its disciples have
partly strayed into extremes, and partly approached
nearer to the view of the Church, it may be regard
ed as inwardly vanquished. The whole partisan
or tendency theory — which detected everywhere
about the plain and simple evangelists the most
artful designs, in every line, in every omission, and
in every expression — has proved to be a mere
fancy ; and the evangelists, whether one takes the
contents of their stories to be historical or unhis-
torical, are , admitted to have been plain, simple
people, who only repeated what they found.' And
besides, in the present state of science, it is no
longer possible to place the most of the canonical
writings in so late a period as the second century.
The Tiibingen school, in order to gain room and
time for their transactions, for the whole business
of the compromise between the Judaizing and the
Pauline tendencies, — which, according to them,
was the process by which Christianity began, —
must separate the dates of the documents of this

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 15
process — the writings of the New Testament — as
much as possible, and bring them down into the
second century. But this has been proved to be
impossible. One decade after another has . been
wrung from them ; and, however one may stand in
other respects, it can no longer be denied upon sci
entific grounds, that no critical arts can lead us
again out of the first century. Thus has the Tubin
gen school been more and more hemmed in ; forced
back, one may say, upon the very person of Christ.
It is plainly shown to be impossible to explain the
origin of Christianity, without determining who
Christ was ; without proceeding from the proposi
tion, that the whole movement was begun by him,
and that it can only be explained by his personal
life and influence.
From this review of the labors and development
of the last thirty years, it may be understood why
the person of Jesus appears again in the fore
ground ; why the subject of discussion is no longer
the apostolic and the post-apostolic period, but the
life of Jesus. The attempt, undertaken with every
scientific means, to explain Christianity in a certain
sense without the person of Jesus, by a mere de
velopment of ideas, for which personality was of
little importance, is to be considered thwarted.
Whoever refuses to renounce that explanation is
nevertheless obliged to regard the person of Jesus ;
he is obliged to answer the question, " What think
ye of Christ ? whose son is he ? " He can no
longer be disposed of in a single remark, as Schweg-
ler treated him ; and the gulf which Baur made

16 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
between him and his apostles must be bridged over. .
The attack, therefore, is all the more dangerous, \
since it is now directed against the very heart of
the Christian faith ; but the change in the situation
is evidence of unmistakable progress. We are at
least rid of Christianity without Christ. The ground
is cleared ; and, though the fight is harder, the is
sue is fortunately nearer.
This progress is perceived at once when one goes
from the older work of Strauss, and from the Tu
bingen school, to Renan, to the notorious work,
" Vie de Je'sus." The Tubingen people could not
tell who was the founder of Christianity. They
supposed that it really had no founder, since the
person is entirely subject to the idea. But Renan
makes us deal decidedly with the person of Jesus ;
and of nothing is Renan more sure, than that he
was the founder of the new religion, — that from
him it received every thing, good and bad. While
Strauss left us in the dark concerning who Jesus
was, since the sources seemed to him insufficient
to determine that fact, Renan finds much more of
history in the Gospels, — enough to describe the per
son of Jesus as perfectly as the person of a Caesar
or. Augustus, or any other man of ancient times.
His image no longer floats in mythical clouds :
Renan, upon a background of landscape and his
tory, done in a masterly way, draws it for us with
sharp outlines, which at least leave nothing to be
desired in clearness and decision.
I will try, in the first place, to set before you the
principal features of this portrait.

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 17
Jesus was born in Nazareth, of humble parents
(the account of his birth in Bethlehem and the at
tendant circumstances is, of course, a mere legend),
and he was consequently without more education
than a child of the people usually had at that time.
But from the beautiful natural scenes of Galilee,
which Renan so charmingly describes, and from his
own heart, he forms a consciousness of God such
as no one before or after him has had. Then he
begins to preach in Galilee. God is our Father,
and all men are brethren : this is the substance of
his preaching. He prophesies a kingdom of God ;
but a kingdom of God which is within man, which
he must create within his own heart " by the right
eousness of his will and the poesy of his soul." *
A pure service of God, a religion without priests
and without ritual, resting wholly upon the feelings
of the heart, upon imitation of God, upon the im
mediate communion of the consciousness with the
heavenly Father, — this is the ground-plan of this
kingdom of heaven. It is a perfectly new idea
which thus enters the world, — the idea of a service
of God based upon purity of heart and the brother
hood of man ; an idea so exalted, that even now
there are but few souls fit to devote themselves to
it. The outlines of this idea are visible in the
Sermon on the Mount, " the most beautiful code of
perfect life that any moralist has traced." f The
* Vie de Jesus, p. 139 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 187).
t Vie de J<5sus, p. 61 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 110).
2

18 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
later realistic conception of the kingdom of God is
as yet totally wanting. This is a supplementary
eclipse of the idea, an error, which the death of
Jesus makes us forget. Nor did he at first work
miracles. This was the time when the exalted idea
stood forth in its purity, "some months, perhaps
a year, during which God really lived upon the
earth." * There were no Christians yet ; but Chris
tianity existed, and never more perfectly than at
that moment. Jesus added nothing more to it : on
the contrary, he only compromised the idea ; "for
every idea, in order to succeed, must needs make sac
rifices ; none comes immaculate out of the struggle
of life." f Had Jesus died then, his idea would
have remained purer, and he would have been
greater in the sight of God ; but, unknown to men,
he would have been lost in the multitude of great
souls that are unknown. It is not enough to con
ceive a great idea : one must also make it effective.
This is only possible through ways that are less
pure. Certainly, if the gospel contained nothing
more than several chapters of Matthew and Luke,
it would be more perfect ; but without miracles it
would not have overcome the world.
Mark these propositions. They are the key to
Renan's whole representation. The idea, which at
first came forth in perfect purity, is more and more
compromised, — this is essentially the whole life of
Jesus. Jesus, in order to realize his idea, constantly
* Vie de Jesus, p. 58 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 107).
t Vie de Jesus, p. 66 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 115).

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 19
descends from the heights of the ideal, enters into
real life, and finally succumbs.
The first impulse in this direction came from his
meeting with John the Baptist. This personage
does not appear to have had a good influence upon
Jesus, who permits himself to be urged out of his
own course, and follows for a time the ways of
John ; for he baptizes as John does, — an outer cere
mony, which is not at all consistent with the pure
Christianity of Renan. But the change is still
deeper. From this time forward, Jesus exerts him
self to realize his ideal in the world. He becomes
a revolutionary character, yet one who, in the trans
cendental, spiritual way, desires to reform the inner
world. This brings us to the second period of his work.
He now preaches the kingdom of heaven, which he
himself brings. Here is a radical change of base,
a revolution, which shall even include nature, and
which banishes sickness and death. In the tower
ing flight of his heroic will, he believes himself
almighty, a reformer of the universe. But not
through the bloody paths of political revolution
shall his ideal be reached : his revolution is a moral
one. There is yet no mention of the angels and
the trump of the last day. The kingdom of God,
realized by men among men, — this is the thought of
that beautiful Galilean idyl which is played in this
act of his life. Riding upon a gentle ass, by the
Lake of Gennesaret, amidst the magnificent scenes
of nature, surrounded by a multitude that applauds

20 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
him, young fishermen his enthusiastic friends,
women and children his followers, publicans and
Magdalenes who found " in their conversion to the
sect a ready means of reinstatement," * — thus he
proceeds through the country. It is a continual
holiday, an uninterrupted ecstasy ; a rural, heavenly
wedding-festival. This beautiful dream also vanishes. He is seized
with the desire to go out of Galilee into Judsea, to
Jerusalem, there to attack Judaism in its established
fortress. There, however, he found a very different
place from rustic Galilee; there he did not have
fishermen and country-girls to deal with. The tem
ple with its priests and sacrifices displeased him :
he took a scourge to purify it, but he and his pro
vincials made no impression upon the capital. Out
of humor, he leaves Jerusalem. By this time he
has entirely lost the Jewish faith ; his revolutionary
passion burns higher and higher. The innocent
aphorisms of the first period, the fine moral sermons
of the second, are past. The Law must be destroyed ;
he will destroy it : the Messiah has come ; he is the
Messiah : the kingdom of God shall be revealed ; it
is he through whom the revelation shall be made, —
this is now the substance of his preaching. He
knows that he shall fall a sacrifice ; but the kingdom
of God is only to be gained by force. These are very
different thoughts from those of the time of the Gali
lean idyl. The Messiah is known as the son of David:
Jesus knows very well that he is not descended from
* Vie de Jesus, p. 134 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 182).

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 21
David, but he also knows that without this name he
can accomplish nothing. Therefore he permits its
use, — at first unwillingly ; then he takes pleasure in
it. Here lie the first germs of the legend, which
begins to grow in his very lifetime. Miracles were
regarded at that time as indispensable signs of the
divine, as necessary proofs of the prophetic, calling.
Jesus was confined to this alternative, — he must
abandon his mission, or he must work miracles. He
worked miracles, — late, to be sure, and against his
will. Miracles were an obligation imposed upon
him by the age in which he lived; a concession
which was forced from him. Miracles were actually
brought to him and put upon him. People thought
that he must work miracles, and the miracles ap
peared. Sick persons believed that they had
recovered by his touch : and he not only permitted
this ; he encouraged it. Very different now sounds
the preaching about the kingdom of God. He now
declares concerning this kingdom, that he will
return upon the clouds of heaven ; he talks of the
day of judgment, and of the renewal of all things.
From a preacher of morals, he has become an apoc
alyptic fanatic. His enmity towards the ruling
powers grows more and more bitter ; his speeches
are full of a rage that has hitherto been foreign to
them. His natural gentleness disappears ; he be
comes austere, dictatorial ; he will no longer endure
opposition ; his words sometimes sound harsh, even
bizarre. A crisis had come : it was time for death
to loose the knot.

22 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
This occupation in Galilee lasted about eighteen
months ; then with the journey to Jerusalem came
the final decision. His stay in Jerusalem was un
comfortable. In the discussions with the Pharisees
about disputed points of the Law, Jesus did not
have the superiority which on other occasions was
sustained by the pure morality, that here rather
placed him at a disadvantage. Jesus was no longer
himself. His friends felt this ; they felt it necessary
that something extraordinary should occur, a great
miracle, — whereupon the resurrection of Lazarus
was arranged. Lazarus, pale from protracted illness,
is laid in the grave, and the comedy of resurrection
from the dead is played. Jesus at least knew all
about it, and permitted it. He could not curb the
desire of his followers for miracles. Fortunate was
it that death soon restored him to the divine free
dom, and delivered him from the fatal necessities of
a part that could no longer be sustained.
It is unnecessary to give at length Renan's ac
count of his death. It is sufficient to say that the
resurrection is not historical. The excited Mary
Magdalene believed that he had risen, and the dis
ciples believed it with her. " Divine power of love !
sacred moments, in which the passion of a hallucin
ated woman gives to the world a resurrected God ! " *
Thus Renan concludes, — a conclusion quite worthy
of such a biography.
That is the life of Jesus, according to Renan. A
rare picture, so strange, so different from all former
* Vie de Je^us, p. 308 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 357).

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 23
portraits of the Lord, that at first one stands before
it in bewilderment, and must exert himself to recol
lect that the artist intended it to be the portrait of
Jesus of Nazareth. How did Renan get the ma
terial for this strange, this perfectly new picture ?
Has he discovered any new authorities ? No, not
one. His authorities are our familiar four Gospels,
to which there is only added as a fifth Gospel, as
Renan expresses it, torn but still legible, the view
of the locality, the view of the East, of the Holy
Land, of its landscapes, of its manners and customs.
He has no new authorities ; but he knows how to
handle the old ones, and elicit from them things
which no one had ever thought of before. The
truth is, that the Gospels have received from Renan
an arbitrary treatment, such as no biographer ever
used towards his authorities. In the first place, they
are made generally uncertain. Without thorough
investigation of their credibility, Renan reaches the
conclusion that they contain much that is historical,
but much also that is legendary. Thus he has per
fect freedom in the use of them : he takes what suits
him, and sets aside what does not suit his history.
He recognizes, on 4he whole, much more history in
the Gospels than Strauss and Baur. But, while he
admits one story to be historical to the smallest de
tail, — another which stands by its side, vouched for
by the same historian, is totally excluded as mere
legend. Why, we ask, shall not this be true, if
that is true ? We seek in vain for a reply. If so
much is authentic as is assumed by Renan, who is

24 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
apparently struck by the liveliness and clearness of
the evangelical narratives, why should not more be
true ? The answer to this is not always clearly ex
pressed, but it exists essentially throughout : because
nothing supernatural can be true. For this reason
the Gospels are shuffled like a pack of cards ; they
are broken into single parts and particles, and these
are put together again in a mosaic, without any re
gard for the chronology and the plan of the Gospels,
according to an original chronology for which the
authorities do not furnish the least ground. When
this is not sufficient, aid is given by the imagina
tion, which is very fertile in Renan, and supplies
him with information which no authority can give.
Do you wish for examples of these performances ?
According to all the Gospels, Jesus meets John the
Baptist before he begins his public work. Renan,
on the contrary, knows of a whole period of his
ministry which at that time was past. He also
knows what the Lord taught and did during this
period. With entire arbitrariness, this fictitious
period is filled up with speeches and acts of Jesus,
which are related by the evangelists as first taking
place after his meeting with John the Baptist. If
any thing in the life of Jesus is established, it is this,
that Jesus himself instituted the Lord's Supper. If
the testimony of the three evangelists is not suffi
cient, we have the unsuspected testimony of Paul ;
and it is also vouched for by the admitted, univer
sal practice of the primitive Church. Renan, how
ever, knows better than this. Jesus did not institute

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 25
the Lord's Supper. How does Renan know this?
Is it not told by the first three evangelists, whom he
believes implicitly concerning other things ? Renan
says John does not relate it. But Renan believes
John least of all : indeed, in his eyes John is the most
unreliable witness; the book was not in existence
until 150, and the discourses it contains are only
Platonic dialogues in an entirely foreign, mythical
style ! And, if this view is not accepted, the silence
of John nevertheless tells more in this case than the
speech of the others. The treatment of the fourth
Gospel is beyond measure baseless in its arbitrari
ness. The book is not authentic ; and yet Renan
uses it as a good authority whenever it suits him.
To all this is added the uncontrolled, ruling, and
creative imagination. It is not only said that Jesus
rode on an ass through Galilee,- — an incident which
Renan must have got from some sixth Gospel, — but
Renan also composes the whole Galilean idyl : where
the wife of Pilate is minutely described for us, as
she looks out of her window, and sees the charming
figure of Jesus ; where also brand-new speeches are
put into the mouth of the Lord, — for instance, that
the law is abolished, while the evangelists make him
say that he has come, not to destroy, but to fulfil.
That is the origin of this medley of truth and fiction,
— an historical romance, a favorite kind of compo
sition nowadays.
What is the result ? Who is Jesus, according to
this description ? Shall I bluntly repeat it ? — a fana
tic, who gradually becomes an impostor, and whom

26 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
death finally takes off at the earliest moment from
the embarrassment of complications which he had
himself prepared. Or shall I describe his progress
more in detail ? first, a pious, amiable fanatic, who
set before himself a precious, but, alas ! impracticable
ideal ; then a gloomier fanatic, who dreams of the
trump of the judgment-day, of his second coming,
of a great catastrophe and revolution of the world ;
then an impostor against his own will, who permits
himself to be forced to one concession after another ;
finally, an intentional impostor. The fine words, of
which Renan is so remarkable a master, are here
of no avail : the things themselves speak. Decide
for yourselves in this matter : if Jesus permits the
name " son of David " to be given him, without contra
dicting ifc, even taking pleasure in it, although he,
knows that he is not descended from David, are we
not already on the boundary of imposture ? If, as
Renan explains, he now and then used this innocent
artifice, — telling his disciples about things which he
had experienced in a perfectly natural way; inci
dents from- their own lives of which he had heard,
as if they had come to him by supernatural means,
— what name has this artifice among honest men ?
He pretends to work miracles, and works none, as
he well knows : what is this but imposture ? And
then that comedy in Bethany, in which, if he did
not make the plot, he at least took part. That, is
really so strong a bit, that they were ashamed to
dish it up for us Germans. It is wanting at least
in a German edition which I have consulted.

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 27
How does Renan come to this ? If I have a cor
rect impression of his description, I believe that it
is not pleasant for him to come to it : he would like
to avoid it ; he would like to represent the Lord as
more purely moral, if he could.. But, according to
his presumptions, this is impossible. Others have
taken the course of declaring all such things to be
unhistorical : they assert that Jesus never said he
should come again upon the clouds, — that this was
merely a misunderstanding of the disciples ; they
have declared such miracles as the resurrection of
Lazarus to be nothing but fiction,, without even a
kernel of history. This Renan cannot do ; he has
too much historical sense ; he admits too much
authentic historical tradition in the authorities to
make this possible for him. But if, on the other
hand, he is unable to recognize any thing supernat
ural in the person and the works of the Lord, there
is no other course left for him than that which he has
taken. If Jesus actually said that he should return
upon the clouds of heaven, and this Renan does not
venture to deny, what can we see in it but fanati
cism if he is not the Son of God from heaven ? If
the Lord actually told the disciples about events in
their lives which had taken place without his knowl
edge, and Renan must admit this on the ground of
the authorities, how shall he explain it if he refuses
once for all to allow a higher knowledge in Jesus,
except as a little trick, an innocent deception, by
which he sought to convince them ? It is the same
with the miracles: Renan has too much historical

28 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
sense not to grant, that something must have oc
curred during the life of the Lord which his con
temporaries at least supposed to be miracles. But,
much as may be attributed to rumor and legend, it
is impossible to account for all in this way. Much
of it is very easily explained. The sick people be
lieved that Jesus could heal them ; and therefore
they were healed, or at all events they thought they
were healed. There is still a good deal left. Hpw
shall he explain that, except by the assumption of
more or less intentional imposture ? Take the
story of the raising of Lazarus : Renan cannot ex
plain this as nothing but rumor. Something of the
kind must have occurred, which made upon the peo
ple of the time the impression of a resurrection of
a dead person. What choice is there but to say
either a man was actually raised from the dead,
or a deception was practised ? Since Renan will
not say the former, he must say the latter. We
may truly learn from Renan whither one is led,
who, on the one hand, admits the records of the
evangelists to be historical, even if it is only in
their outlines, — and this must be admitted by any
one who is not willing to fall into a most unscien
tific arbitrariness ; and, on the other hand, refuses
to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God become
man. Then, it is true, one gets a mere man, but
most certainly not a purely moral one, a pattern
of genuine humanity ; but one that is from intrinsic
necessity a fanatic and an impostor.
This, then, is the author of Christianity ; this the

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 29
founder of the Church ! Now, I pray you, look for
a moment at the facts : here is Christianity, here is
the Church, here is the whole Christian life and its
unfailing fruits, its blessed influences upon indivi
duals, upon entire nations, upon all mankind.
These are facts. They must have, according to
reasonable thinking, a sufficient cause. Answer
calmly for yourselves the question, whether this
life of Jesus, as Renan tells it, is a sufficient cause ;
whether this Jesus of Renan can be the author of
such a religion, the founder of such a Church. Is
not this a supposition quite incomprehensible, quite
impossible ? Tell me, if you can, how it comes to
pass : there lives in Palestine this Jesus, a fanatic
who believes himself to be almighty, without being
so ; who dreams that he is the judge of the world,
and is only a man ; who pretends to work miracles,
and works none ; who at last turns impostor, and
perishes, ruined by his own guilt. Twenty years
after his death, the same persons who were his as
sociates declare him to be a God, and, what is
most strange, they have faith in this ; then things
are told of him, miracles, which never occurred.
He had consented to imposture ; and this is not
only forgotten, but he is made the author of a reli
gion which condemns all deception most severely :
he is even made to say that lying is from the devil.
There are such men as this Paul, who, whatever
else may be said of him, was a sober, calm man,
remarkably clear-headed, thoroughly honest ; and he
changes from a persecutor to his apostle. His ene-

30' THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
mies persecute him to death, accuse him before the
court, make every effort in their power to destroy
his followers ; but there is no trace of evidence that
the miracles which he told were denied by them, or
that they ever attempted to prove them to be im
posture, although as his contemporaries they must
have had proof enough at their command. Solve
for me only one of these many riddles.
Let us, however, listen to Renan himself. He
perhaps has found the solution. He first complains
that we always speak so rudely of lying and impos
ture. " It is easy for us, impotent as we are, to
call this falsehood, and, proud of our timid honesty,
to treat with contempt the heroes who accepted,
under other conditions, the battle of life. When
we shall have done with our scruples what they did
with their falsehoods, we shall have the right to be
severe upon them." * But, you will say, that is a
justification of lying for pious purposes. Certainly
it is ; and it is not merely given in the heat of a
moment, but just here appears Renan's whole view
of life and the world. You remember the proposi
tions which I have already quoted, that the idea
cannot be realized without losing its purity. Here
you have those propositions in plainer language.
" Such is the feebleness of the human mind, that
the best causes are ordinarily gained only for bad
reasons." f " There is no great foundation which
does not repose upon legend." * " All great things
* Vie de Jesus, p. 181 (Wilbour's Trans., pp. 227, 228).
t Vie de Jesus, p. 184 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 231).

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 31
are achieved by the people : now the people are led
only by yielding to their ideas." * " He who takes
humanity with its illusions, and seeks to act upon
it and with it, cannot be blamed." * " The only
guilt in such a case is that of humanity, which will
be deceived." * One cannot be plainer. Here you
have the proposition in its naked simplicity. The
world will be deceived, therefore it is deceived ;
and this proposition as the foundation, as the canon
and standard, of the life of Jesus ! Take notice
here, that these are the moral foundations of those
who talk so much about morality, and plume them
selves upon reducing Christianity to its simple moral
principles. There remains one more step for us to take. A
man's view of the world depends upon the concep
tion which he has of God. Let us test Renan in
this deepest base. Has Renan any God left? It
seems so. He certainly glorifies Jesus above all
men, because he had a pure consciousness of God,
such as no one before him and no one after him has
ever had. Pure Christianity, according to his view,
is nothing else than this preaching about God, the
Father of all mankind.- On the contrary, it must
look suspicious when Renan explains the substance
of faith as a Utopia ; still more when he frequently
attributes to Jesus pantheistic-colored thoughts, —
when he says of him, that, according to his poetic
conception, one breath of God pervades the whole
universe. If we inquire, elsewhere, how Renan
* Vie de Jesus, p. 181 (Wilbour's Trans., pp. 227, 228).

32 THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN.
expresses himself concerning this question, there
can be hardly a doubt left about his real thoughts.
There is an article in the "Revue des Deux
Mondes"* for 1863, a letter from Renan to Berthe-
lot, the chemist, which in its expressions concerning
the essence of God is in many respects obscure and
indistinct : but this much is clear, that Renan's God
is not the free personal God of the Scriptures ; not
the Creator of the world, the Father of our Lord Je
sus Christ. It is evident that his views are strongly
tinged with pantheism. The consciousness of God,
therefore, which Jesus had was nothing : Renan has
another. There is no such heavenly Father as
Jesus declares, — at least Renan does not believe in
him ; and, although he occasionally acts as if he
believed in this heavenly Father, it is fair enough
to suppose, that, according to his previously devel
oped propositions, this is only an accommodation to
the notions of the people whom he desires to influ
ence. The guilt of such an accommodation falls,
of course, not upon him, but upon the people who
still hold fast the old ideas. The time will come,
perhaps, when this veil also may be dropped, and,
instead of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, one
can openly preach the Pan-God to the people.
Renan in one place describes in vivid colors the
heights of Nazareth, and the view one has from
there of the beautiful outlines of Carmel falling
precipitously to the sea, of the mountains of Gilboa,
the gracefully rounded Tabor, and, far beyond, the
* Tome 47, Livraison 15.* Octobre, 1863.

THE LIFE OF JESUS BT RENAN. 66
valley of the Jordan. Then he breaks forth with
these spirited words : " If ever the world, still
Christian, but having obtained a better idea of what
constitutes respect for origins, shall desire to sub
stitute authentic holy places for the mean and
apocryphal sanctuaries which were seized upon by
the piety of the barbarous ages, it is upon this
height of Nazareth that it will build its temple." *
That will probably be the temple where Sakya-Muni,
Mohammed and Jesus, whom Renan is so fond of
classing together, shall peacefully receive a common
veneration, and mankind, free at last, shall worship
the God of Renan.
Is it an accident that Renan places this temple
just at Nazareth ? Then it is certainly a remark
able accident. For you remember the reception
Jesus met with in this same Nazareth, and what we
find written of Nazareth : " They were offended at
him," and " He marvelled because of their un
belief." * Vie de Jesus, p. 21 (Wilbour's Trans., p. 71).

SECOND DISCOURSE.
"THE CHARACTER OF JESUS PORTRAYED,"*
BY SCHENKEL.
"A NEW LIFE OF JESUS," f BY STRAUSS.

HPHE " Life of Jesus " by Renan, which was dis-
-¦- cussed at our last meeting, has had a wide
influence. Translated into almost every language of
civilized Europe, it has been spread in many thous
ands of copies ; mostly, however, among the nations
speaking the Romanic languages, and within the do
main of the Romish Church, to which Renan origin
ally belonged. It might easily be shown, that the
whole character of the book exactly corresponds to
this sphere. It may be remarked, by the way, that
the wide circulation of the book in Roman-Catholic
countries, the eagerness with which it has there
been, as it were, devoured, is also a proof that the
popular faith within the Romish church is not in so
good a state as is often declared ; that the unchris-
tianizing of the masses, especially of the educated
classes, is going on there, too, to a greater degree
* Title of Furness's Translation.
t Title of Authorized Translation.

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 35
perhaps than with us, although it is not so con
spicuous by the side of the apparently greater power
of the Church. The book has been generally offered
to our German people in editions which omit, not
only what there is of rather learned matter in the
original, but also the many too absurdly frivolous
assertions, a sample of which I cited in my last dis
course. It'was clearly seen, however, that a differ
ent kind of viand was required for us Germans ;
and in consequence of the excitement caused by
Renan, and by the great effect of his book, attempts
were made to supply our wants. Strauss, it is true,
had already decided to prepare a new edition of his
" Life of Jesus " for the German people, and had
prepared part of it before the work of Renan ap
peared, — another sign of how much of this thing
lay in the air ; but Schenkel was first incited by
the appearance of Renan's work to write his
" Character of Jesus Portrayed."
He directly says, in the Preface of his book, that
the sensation caused by Renan's " Life of Jesus " for
cibly reminded him " of the necessity of meeting
the deep want of our time, which demands a gen
uinely human, truly historical representation of
Jesus." * For this purpose Schenkel proposes not
to write precisely a Life of Jesus, but only to por
tray the " Character of Jesus." But the book
which bears this title is really a Life of Jesus.
Schenkel tells us the whole life of the Lord, from
his birth to his death ; he gives, on the whole,
* Schenkel's Characterbild, S. iv. (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. xxiv).

36 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
what one expects from a Life of Jesus. But he
gained this advantage through the title, — he was
not bound to deal impartially with every detail;
an advantage which he has known how to use in
the controversies that have arisen over his book.
If I must begin again by giving you a brief sum
mary of the contents of this book, by trying to copy
the chief features of the picture which Schenkel
has sketched, I must also begin with a complaint.
Coming from Renan to Schenkel, one misses at
once the clear and decided lines with which Renan
draws the portrait of Jesus. With Schenkel, every
thing is fleeting -and misty. With Renan you al
ways know your bearings, but with Schenkel it is
often impossible to tell where you are ; and, when
you have taken great pains to extract from the
plentiful words his real opinion, you must after
wards observe with astonishment that you have
entirely misunderstood him. Take a single in
stance of this. Friend and enemy had understood
from his book, that Schenkel denied the actual
resurrection of Jesus, — his friends with gratifica
tion, for they inferred from this that he had now
broken entirely with the faith of the Church ; his
opponents with indignation, for they made this very
denial of the resurrection the chief reproach against
him. All at once Schenkel comes out, and com
plains that he has been entirely misunderstood : he
by no means denied the resurrection ; he did not
make it, as his opponents asserted (not only his
opponents, his friends likewise), a mere spiritual

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 37
occurrence in the souls of the disciples ; but he
plainly recognized the reality of the appearance of
the risen Jesus as the actual manifestation of his
surviving personality in its transformed and glo
rified state. It is certainly unfortunate when any
one expresses himself so indistinctly concerning
such an important matter, that his readers entirely
misunderstand him.
He is therefore in an awkward situation who
has to copy the picture which Schenkel has drawn.
It is hard to understand it correctly, and it is still
harder to describe it to another. He has to repre
sent this indistinctness, this variableness, and yet
say what Schenkel really means. The attempt must
be made ; but I beg you not to blame me if the pic
ture proves to be rather poor. The cloud of words
with which Schenkel envelops the particular fea
tures, I certainly cannot furnish.
Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, of Naza
reth (Schenkel also sets aside the supernatural
birth as a legend), was a child of the people, and
grew up in narrow circumstances. This was just
the right preparation for him, the future man of the
people. The strength of his religious feelings showed
itself very early ; especially when, a boy twelve years
old, he attended for the first time the feast at Je
rusalem. His relation to John the Baptist is to be
conceived as totally different from the representation
of it given by the evangelists. John's attempt to
cause a moral revival of his people was wholly a
mistake. John is the man who puts new cloth on

38 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
an old garment. Therefore the ways of Jesus soon
separate from those of John. It is true that his
Messianic calling was not yet clear to Jesus; but
this was clear, that the theocracy possessed no power
for reviving the people ; that an act of God was neces
sary to do it : and he foreboded at least that this
divine act should proceed from himself.
He consequently comes forth as a teacher, with
the sermon, " ' The time is fulfilled ; ' i.e., the old
time of the theocracy, of ceremonial tutelage, and
of the religion of forms and formulas,"* — this old
time is past, the kingdom of God is at hand. Re
pentance is the condition of admission into it.
Jesus comes forth, not as the Messiah, but as the
founder of a new communion of true Israelites, inde
pendent of the old theocratic conditions. He collects
the first disciples as a nucleus of this, and tries to
exert an influence, especially among the middle
classes of the people, in the places about the Lake of
Gennesaret. In Capernaum, he performs the first
act which appears to the people to be a miracle.
He heals one who is possessed, — possessed with a
devil. According to Schenkel's view, this person
was not possessed: that was merely imagined by
the superstition of the age, concerning which it was
not the mission of Jesus to enlighten the people.
It is also not certain that the man was healed for
ever ; but Jesus quieted his convulsions -by taking
hold of him kindly, and speaking to him in a com
forting way. He was now regarded by the people
* Schenkel's Char., S. 41 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 92).

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 39
as a worker of miracles. He had this reputation
without being one. Schenkel admits, that Jesus,
though it was a disagreeable and unwilling task,
healed sick persons by his comforting words and
kind touch ; but his power can be psychologically
explained, not as a miracle, but as a natural gift.
Real miracles, rays of his divine nature, Schenkel
decidedly denies. What was supposed to be mira
cle, all happened within the limits of nature. In
this way, a whole list of miracles are naturally
explained. What cannot be explained in this way,
even by Schenkel, is supposed to be either wholly
or partially legend, based upon some natural event
which afterwards received legendary embellishment,
and became a miracle. For instance, the miracle at
the wedding in Cana. Here it is only historical that
Jesus went to the wedding, and thought it not un
becoming to attend to getting the wine that was
wanted. In after times, however, it was thought
that this was unbecoming, and the history was
twisted into a legend, that Jesus procured the wine
by a miracle of almighty power.
Thus passes the first period of the work of Jesus.
The opposition of the hierarchical party drives him
farther. The orthodox, scholastic theologians, the
party of the high-churchmen, — thus Schenkel gladly
designates the Scribes and Pharisees, — are offended
because he breaks the Sabbath. Thereupon he pro
claims freedom of worship, and appears as the rep
resentative of true human worth and eternal human
rights. This completed, inwardly, the breach with

40 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
the high-churchmen. In controversy with them,
there had dawned upon Jesus " the conviction that
the eternal Truth, which is from our Father in
heaven, and which is the central life of things, had
embodied itself anew in him directly and originally ;
whilst all the learning of the schools, and all priestly
mediation and ceremonial observances, were but as
a gold-fringed covering, hiding from sight all that is
imperishable in the divine, all that is real in human
ity." — " Ignorant obedience, or willing love, in the
domain of religion and morality, — this was now
the question." *
Jesus did not even yet presume to be the Messiah,
but the deliverer, the liberator, of his people. The
opposition to him gradually cleared his views, and
he took an important step in the direction of estab
lishing a new Israelitish religious communion (it
was nothing more as yet), by selecting the twelve,
and sending them forth. Therein lay a germ, that
was to grow much greater. The establishment of the
true Israel, this was the next object of Jesus' work.
But a kingdom of the Spirit, of truth, of righteous
ness, of love, that has its place within men, is bound
by no external statutes ; is not dependent upon tra
ditions and ceremonies, upon forms and formulas,
— such a kingdom belongs to no single nation, but
to mankind itself. Consequently, Jesus looked
towards the Gentile world. He visited the region
about Tyre and Sidon, and went to Csesarea Philippi.
This was not precisely a missionary journey : its
* Schenkel's Char. S. 66 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. pp. 146, 147).

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 41
object was rather to test the susceptibility of the
Gentile world.
Upon his return, he utters the decisive word : he
declares himself to be the Messiah. This must have
been hard for him to do, for he knew that the task
of the Messiah in the Old Testament was very dif
ferent from his own ; namely, to exalt the priestly
rule of Israel to the dominion of the world, the Old-
Testament theocracy to the religion of the world,
while he wished to found a spiritual kingdom. He
also knew that he could not fulfil the Messianic
expectations of the people. Nevertheless he declared
himself to be the Messiah. He was obliged to do
this ; for it was the only way to accomplish his pur
pose with a large part of the people. He was, con
sequently, obliged to consent to the application of
Old-Testament Messianic ideas to his person, and
at the same time to try to clear them of the impure
elements attached to them, in order thus to fulfil
them in their true sense. The fulfilment of the old
covenant in his person was, it is true, the non-fulfil
ment of all the theocratic expectations. A suffering
Messiah was, to the Jews, a contradiction ; and yet
it was necessary that he should become a suffering
Messiah. Only in suffering could his destiny be
fulfilled ; suffering was to become the true sanction
of his redeeming mission.
The departure to Jerusalem begins the last pe
riod in the life of the Lord, — the school of sorrow,
the completion of his work. The entry into Jeru
salem brings on the actual decision. By this he

42 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
put arms into his enemies' hands. He came out
openly as Messiah, not merely by entering the city
in this character, but by the more conspicuous Mes*-
sianic act of purifying the temple, by which he
wished to show that this house of stone was de
voted to destruction ; that the destruction of the
theocratic dominion and the external temple-service
was already an actual fact. He wished to prove
thereby his right to set up, in place of this temple
of .stone, which was desecrated by its own keepers,
the new, great, spiritual temple of the nations. He
thereupon proclaimed himself as the Messiah of
a spiritual kingdom of God. His enemies were
now able to prosecute him. Jesus knew that he
had transgressed the letter of the antiquated law.
Treachery then delivered him into the hands of his
enemies. His death became the source of blessing
and honor. The merciful love, the representative
of which he died, arraigned the heartless law whose
letter had put him to death. This law now came
upon the bench of the accused, and with it the
whole theocratic institution. The hierarchy was
now judged, her law condemned; her formalism
had become an abomination through the cross, which
had been lifted up as the symbol of innocence, pu
rity, truth, justice, love, and freedom. Thus is his
death the expiation for the sins of the world. This
it was, because through its blessed results the op
eration of the law was abolished ; because through
it there came to mankind the knowledge that God
does not apply to sin the standard of the dead let-

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 43
ter of prescription. The dead Christ is also the
eternally living : he lives in his people. The living
Christ is the Spirit of the Church. He lives in all
those in whom his word has become spirit and life.
Schenkel claims that this representation of his
gives a truly historical and genuinely human por
trait of Jesus. The claim is the more significant,
since the Church, according to Schenkel's view, has
never had such a portrait of Jesus. Never, I say ;
for even the oldest representations of the life of
Jesus, our Gospels, are neither truly historical nor
genuinely human : even in them the miraculous
legend has the preponderance. The Jewish-Chris
tian party fought valiantly against the deification
of Jesus, but in vain. They were unable to prevent
the formation of the dogma of the God-man with
his two natures, — one divine and one human.
Such a twofold being is wholly unhistorical ; and
from this standpoint a genuinely human portrait of
Jesus cannot be obtained. The reformers took this
catholic dogma without testing it. They did not
dare (from fear of the results, Schenkel thinks) to
subject it to a searching revision, — in Schenkel's
eyes a grievous mistake, which has grievously re
venged itself. Rationalism first attempted to un
derstand the person of Jesus as human ; but the
rationalistic portrait of Christ is unsatisfactory : it
leaves the feelings cold, the imagination empty, the
disposition indifferent. We cannot believe in this
rationalistic Christ. Schleiermacher went a step
farther: he drew such a portrait of Christ as he

44 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
needed for his own religious wants. But his Christ
had a great defect : he is no Christ for the people ;
not the Christ " as he went about and taught and
labored among the people, and as, for the people, he
suffered and died."* The want remains unsatis
fied. The Church exists more than eighteen hun
dred years ; sees in this Christ her Head, her Lord,
her source of life ; her religious services, her
doctrine, her whole life, are concerned with this
Christ : but, strange to say, she has not had a truly
historical, genuinely human portrait of her Lord
until to-day. Schenkel has tried to satisfy this
great want. Verily, if he had succeeded, we should
have to date a new era in the history of the Church
from the day on which his " Character of Jesus "
made its appearance ; and Schenkel would have
rendered the Church a greater service than Luther,
or any of the other great men whom she venerates
as her human teachers. Let us not be prevented
by the greatness of the claims he advances from
calmly examining them. Schenkel, it is true, offers
his " Character of Jesus " only as an attempt, how
ever surely convinced he may be that it is a success
ful attempt.
One word before we begin. There is a difficulty
in expressing one's self exactly about Schenkel.
The position he has taken towards the questions of
the day, and the part he has played in the ecclesias
tical controversies of late years, are apt to make
judgment upon his book seem clouded by partisan-
* Schenkel's Char., S. 8 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 14).

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 45
ship. I wish, therefore, to expressly state, that we
now have to deal, not with Schenkel the Church
politician, but with Schenkel the historian. The
question before us, which we wish to consider with
perfect impartiality, is this : whether his " Charac
ter of Jesus " is truly historical.
This requires, in the first place, that the picture
be taken from the authorities. Truly historical
treatment of the authorities is the first claim which
we have the right to make upon an historical repre
sentation. Schenkel especially prefers the Gospel of
Mark. This, he thinks, gives the record that was
nearest to the scene of the Saviour's life. Mark
composed it from Peter's oral discourses between
45 and 58, only about twenty years after the Lord's
death, and in the very lifetime of Peter. If it is ad
mitted that these records were made with great accu
racy from Peter's discourses, as Schenkel expressly
acknowledges, then we have in the second Gospel
an authority as good as could be desired. Schenkel,
to be sure, supposes that we do not possess the sec
ond Gospel as it came from the hand of the author :
the original Mark has been revised, but this revision
has not altered its essential contents. Schenkel
lays Mark at the foundation : his " Character of
Jesus" is intended to be a representation of the
life of Jesus, based upon the second Gospel. Is he
right in this ? Is the view just presented concerning
Mark and its relation to the other Gospels correct ?
I am the less inclined to dispute about it with
Schenkel, since the substance of this view was not

46 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
invented by him, but is borrowed from his colleague,
Holtzmann. Grant it all for a moment ; then cer
tainly Schenkel's representation must agree sub
stantially with that of Mark ; his portrait of Christ,
with the portrait which Mark gives. Is this the
fact ? You will at once reply, No : the Christ of
Mark is wholly different from that of Schenkel.
Take a single point, the miracles, — what a differ
ence ! Schenkel asserts that in Mark the miraculous
part is less prominent than in the other Gospels,
and this he adds to the arguments for its greater
age. But this is simply not true. Read Matthew,
and then read Mark : you will find no difference in
this respect. In one, as in the other, the whole
work of the Lord is pervaded by miracles, the whole
coloring of the picture is supernatural. How does
Schenkel reconcile his position with these facts ?
Schenkel replies that the occurrence of miracles
may be explained by a twofold reason. In the first
place, Mark freely worked over the discourses of
Peter, and wrote his Gospel under the influence of
the oral tradition, and the need of miracles felt by
the apostolic Church ; and Peter himself may have
represented, according to Old-Testament models,
many an evangelical incident in a miraculous
light. In the next place, the reviser of the original
Gospel of Mark inserted here and there among
the earlier accounts the later conceptions, although
the special cases where this was done cannot now
be precisely ascertained. You observe, in the first
place, that Schenkel, after announcing only two

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 47
reasons, really gives three ; for, besides the part of
Mark himself and of his reviser, a share of the
guilt is imputed, by the way, in a parenthesis, to
Peter. Who of the three is the chief offender?
This Schenkel declines to ascertain. He contents
himself with having thrown Suspicion upon these
three men, by the general assertion, that they in
troduced the legend of miracles into the record. I
fear, however, that we shall be neither willing nor
able to content ourselves with this general asper
sion. If the subject of dispute were nothing more
than that here and there a slight miraculous touch
had been added, now and then a story had been
embellished with miracles, or had been put in a
miraculous light, the matter might drop. But this
is not the case : the question concerns a number of
the greatest miracles, which Schenkel (here he is
helped by the fact that he writes only a Character,
not a Life, of Jesus) passes over in partial silence.
There is the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the
stilling of the tempest, the raising of Jairus's
daughter from the dead. The whole record is satu
rated with miracles ; the person of Jesus is placed
wholly in a miraculous light ; which of the three
has done this ? Schenkel speaks of Peter only in
cidentally : he does not count him with the others.
He is really not to be thought of; the miraculous
tales could not come from him. Take a few ex
amples : The Lord provided food for the people in
the wilderness, Schenkel says, in an entirely natural

48 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
way : did Peter, then, tell the story as if Jesus had
increased the bread miraculously ? The Lord, on a
certain occasion, showed himself more courageous
than old sailors (another similar interpretation of
Schenkel's) : did Peter, then, make out of this the
story of the stilling of the tempest ? In the house
of Jairus, no one was raised from the dead : did
Peter, then, tell that story? This is impossible.
We must release Peter : he cannot be the guilty one.
Nor is there any better reason for accusing the
reviser. If he were responsible for all that is
miraculous, which according to Schenkel is legend,
he would not only have altered essentially the
original Mark : he would have created an entirely
new picture of Christ. But that is not the opinion
of Schenkel, or of his pioneer, Holtzmann : it would
be an utterly untenable theory. Schenkel does not
regard the reviser as the really guilty one. He
only inserted here and there the later conceptions.
No one therefore remains, but Mark himself. This
surely contradicts what Schenkel has previously
told us, — that Mark took down the discourses of
Peter with great accuracy. We would nevertheless
consent to the contradiction, if we only gained our
object. But, instead of this, we find a new riddle.
Mark takes notes of Peter's discourses, and makes
out of them something wholly different, wholly
new ; gives to the natural events reported by Peter
a miraculous character, creates an entirely new
picture of Christ! Is that conceivable? What
kind of a man must Mark have been to do it?

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 49
And, besides, this does not happen long years after
ward : it takes place immediately afterward, in the
very lifetime of Peter. What must Peter have
said, if he ever saw or heard of this book? He
had related, that the Lord fed the people in a
natural way ; and out of this his interpreter makes
the miracle of the loaves and fishes. He had re
lated, that the Lord, showed himself courageous
during a storm at sea ; and here he reads that the
Lord stilled the tempest. He never told about rais
ing any one from the dead ; and yet here is the
story in this book, composed of his discourses. In
deed, this is more than strange : it is inconceivable.
There is no escape from the difficulty. Schenkel
has made a general statement of reasons for us, to
show how the miraculous legends came into the
record ; but his explanation answers only so long as
we are content with indistinctness. When we try
to take fast hold of any single point, we grasp at
nothing. As long as Schenkel is unable to explain
definitely how such very unhistorical things have
come into this excellent historical authority, so long
must we dispute his right to use it as he does, — now
to accept its contents as historical, now to reject
them as unhistorical. That is uncritical ambiguity.
He is obliged either to accept the miracles which
he doubts, or to reject as unreliable an authority
which relates such unhistorical things in an in
explicable way.
The matter looks still worse when we examine it
in detail. Schenkel, with a readiness which calls to
4

50 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
mind the most flourishing times of the old rational
ism, can explain many of the miraculous stories
as perfectly natural. For instance, it is recorded
that the Lord healed a leper. Schenkel knows that
in this case comforting words and a kind touch are
not sufficient. They have never yet cured a bad
disease of the skin. He supposes that the sick
man was already essentially cured when Jesus said
to him, " Be thou clean." Here we see the regular
rationalistic trick of explaining, or rather of in
laying, for the evangelist says nothing of the sort :
it is Schenkel alone who inserts this, without con
sidering what an equivocal part Jesus is made to
play in healing over again, or in pretending to heal,
a person who had been already cured of his sick
ness. This convenient trick, however, is not sufficient
to account for all the miracles. There still remain
records of miracles which cannot be disposed of in
this way. Schenkel, accordingly, undertakes a divi
sion. He strips off all that is miraculous as a later
addition, and leaves, as a truly historical kernel, an
entirely natural event. In order not to use new
instances constantly, I will again take as an exam
ple the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Schenkel
sets aside the story, that Jesus miraculously fed
thousands of people with a few loaves ; but he holds,
as truly historical, that Jesus once fed the people in
the desert. This was done by no miracle, but by
carefully arranging that the disciples should procure
food. When the food was brought, Jesus distrib-

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 51
uted it among the people, after making a prayer of
thanksgiving. From the impression left by this
event, in connection with the Lord's teaching con
cerning the spiritual food, which he himself com
pared with the manna that sustained the people in
the wilderness, the exaggerating, miracle-seeking
legend constructed the story of a miraculous provi
sion of bodily food. Then it is historical : it really
happened, that Jesus fed the people in the wilder
ness, since, after a prayer of thanksgiving, he had
food dispensed to them by his disciples. But how
does Schenkel know this ? From Mark, will be the
reply. Yes ; but Mark says, clearly and distinctly,
that the feeding was miraculous. If Schenkel be
lieves one part of this story, why does he not believe
the other ? If Mark is such an untrustworthy wit
ness, that he relates a miracle when none has oc
curred, I cannot understand how Schenkel can treat
him as such a trustworthy witness as to accept, upon
his testimony, all the rest of the story, to the very
details of the prayer of thanksgiving and the dis
pensing of the food by the disciples. I am aware
that an historian can doubt particulars and secondary
things in what is told by his authority, and still hold
the substance to be well founded ; but here the mat
ter stands just the other way. By discarding the
miracle of the story, Schenkel discards the substance
of it, — the chief point, the very thing for the sake
of which it was told. Can you suppose that Peter
and the other apostles told their congregations such
natural tales, as that the Lord once distributed bread

52 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
in the wilderness, that he once showed himself cou
rageous on the sea, etc. ? Is it not the miracles for
whose sake the stories are always told ? It is an
extremely hazardous proceeding to reject the real
point- of a story as unhistorical, and to hold fast
subordinate points. The chief matter drags with it
the by-matters irrecoverably into destruction.
But, says Schenkel, improbable as it is that the
history is true as it stands, it is equally improb
able that all of it has been invented. To this I re
ply, in the first place, Why not ? When the chief
thing, the miracle, has once been invented, or has
originated in a change from a spiritual to a sensu
ous idea, why cannot the details be also invented ?
Is the fabricating legend so unproductive ? Where
does legend exhibit any thing so bare and cold and
colorless ? Does it not always tell its tales with
life-like distinctness, and with details full of color ?
In the next place, I reply : We can just as fairly
reverse the matter, and say of the miracle what
Schenkel says of his alleged natural kernel, — that
cannot have been invented. Who will then decide
what can or cannot have been invented ? Schenkel
says of one thing, others say of another thing, —
That cannot have been invented. These are merely
subjective opinions, nothing more. Schenkel once
said against Strauss, " If so much is historical as he
admits, then still more must be historical." Pre
cisely the same objection can be made to Schenkel ;
or we can reverse it, and say, as Strauss says, If
so much is unhistorical as Schenkel admits, then

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 53
still more must be unhistorical. It is ambiguity in
criticism to stop short where Schenkel does. It is
mere arbitrariness, not scientific criticism, to say,
So far I believe Mark ; so far I do not believe him.
He must either, with Strauss, reject the whole as
unhistorical ; or, with the Church, accept the whole
as historical.
The same arbitrariness is repeated in his treat
ment of the other Gospels. Thus, to take an instance
from Luke, Schenkel explains the whole story of the
infancy as fiction; but he retains the story about
Jesus, when a boy of twelve in the temple, as hav
ing really happened. For both stories we have the
same authority. What right, then, has Schenkel to
reject one story and to retain the other ? It will be
said, The one, the story of the infancy, is full of
miracles ; the other, the story of the visit of Jesus,
when a boy of twelve, to the temple, is thoroughly
natural. I will not speak of the fact, that Schenkel
is first obliged to extract the miracle from the sec
ond story by the arts of natural explanation : I will
grant that at once. But I ask, Is it criticism to
reject the first story, and to accept the second upon
such ground ? Is it not dogmatic presumption ?
According to Schenkel's dogmatic presumption, there
can be no miracle, consequently the birth of Jesus
cannot have taken place as Luke relates it, therefore
the story is not authentic. On the other hand, what
is related of Jesus, when a boy of twelve, can have
happened ; therefore it is authentic. Here we see
the treatment of the authorities, as it lies at the

54 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
foundation of Schenkel's representation. What
agrees with his dogmatic presumptions ; what fits
into the image of Christ that he has made for him
self; what, in his opinion, cannot have been in
vented; what, in his view, bears the stamp of
authenticity, — that is historical : all else is not.
This proceeding reaches its climax in the treat
ment of the fourth Gospel. According to Schenkel,
this cannot have been written by John. It contra
dicts the other Gospels in many places ; it contains ,
many historical and geographical errors, and there
fore cannot have been written by an inhabitant of
Palestine. The discourses of Jesus contained in it
are profound, but obscure and enigmatical, not pop
ular : the historical Jesus cannot have discoursed as
the fourth Gospel represents. The fourth Gospel,
from beginning to end, abandons the ground of
history, and places itself upon a speculative stand
point. The history, regarded from this standpoint,
has experienced all kinds of transformations, which
have not been able to escape the acuteness of Schen
kel. Thus the fourth Gospel says, The mother of
Jesus stood under the cross, and from the cross the
Lord spoke to her the familiar words. Schenkel, on
the contrary, asserts, The mother could not endure
the sight of her crucified son ; and that story arose
(was invented accordingly) from the desire to have,
in the mother's constancy at the cross, an expiation
for her former indifference to the gospel. And
since the evangelist, in the story about the first mir
acle at the wedding in Cana, had recorded a harsh

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 55
word spoken by Jesus to his mother, he would gladly
end his life with a word of kindness. On the other
hand, the words by which the Lord commends his
spirit into the Father's hands, are omitted by the
author of the fourth Gospel, because they do not
agree with his idea of Jesus. If Jesus, according to
the introduction of the Gospel, is the Word become
flesh, of equal birth with God, he cannot thus com
mend his spirit into the hands of the Father.
We should suppose that such a transformation
of the history, made from a speculative standpoint
in the second century (110-120, Schenkel thinks),
could not serve as an authority, and that Schenkel
would have to leave the fourth Gospel out of sight
in portraying his character. Far from it : on the
contrary, without the fourth Gospel, the portrait of
the Lord would lack " the unfathomable depth, the
inaccessible height." * Jesus was not in reality,
but in truth, such as the fourth Gospel describes
him. Although it was not written by John, there
lie at the foundation of the fourth Gospel accounts
which come from John ; and these Schenkel, of
course, is able to find out, in spite of the transfor
mation which this history has experienced from a
speculative standpoint. As you please, therefore,
it is both genuine and not genuine, Johannine and
not Johannine, true and not true. Schenkel gains
thereby the ability to use it as he pleases, to take
what fits into his image of Christ, and to leave out
what does not fit.
* Schenkel's Char., S. 25 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 46).

56 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
Look at a few examples of this kind. The con
versation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman ceis
tainly cannot have taken place as John relates it.
Time and place are wrongly given ; it describes
Jesus as omniscient when he was not ; it alludes to
the relations of the Jews to the Samaritans, in such
a way as to betray in the author an ignorance of
their actual relations, inconceivable in a born Jew ;
the words of Jesus concerning the worship of God
represent him in a wholly incorrect position towards
the Old-Testament law. In spite of all this, we
soon hear, to our great amazement, that in its main
substance the story is not invented, but bears the
seal of trustworthiness. The riddle is easily solved.
That " loftiest plea for toleration," * which is found
in this conversation, the "largeness of heart," f in
the declaration of the character of the true worship
of God, — could not be left out of Schenkel's por
trait of Christ. Here therefore, in the midst of all
that is unhistorical, is found a bit of history. In
his enthusiasm over this largeness of heart, Schen
kel forgets, that, a hundred and odd pages before, he
adduced this same saying concerning the worship
of God as a proof that the fourth Gospel puts Jesus
in a position towards the law which differs entirely
from the representation of the other three Gospels,
and is therefore false. The same course is pursued
towards the record of the washing of the disciples'
* Schenkel's Char., S. 125 (Furness's Trans., vol. ii. pp. 82, 83).
t " Grossartigen Weitherzigkeit." Schenkel's Char., S. 125 (Fur
ness's Trans., vol. ii. p. 83).

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 57
feet. We learn that the fourth Gospel has arranged
the events of the last evening from a speculative
point of view. On that evening certainly, the wash
ing of the disciples' feet cannot have taken place.
Then perhaps the author invented it from his spec
ulative point of view ? Not at all : the washing of
the disciples' feet serves so excellently to humble
all priestly pride, it is such an indispensable feature
in Schenkel's portrait, that here again, in spite of
every thing, truly historical recollection must be
recognized. The same treatment of the authorities
prevails throughout. What suits Schenkel's por
trait is genuine ; what does not suit it is not genu
ine. We are then led to the unexpected result, that, in
several instances where the first three Gospels are
in error, the correct account is found in the fourth
Gospel ; that even Mark, at other times so much
preferred, must consent to be corrected by this Gos
pel treatise of the second century. The discourse
in the sixth chapter of John furnishes us with an
historical sign, that the miracle of the loaves and
fishes, as related in the first three Gospels, did not
take place. Comparing the Lord's discourses, as
given by the first three evangelists, concerning the
last things, with the final discourses of Jesus in the
thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of John's Gospel,
Schenkel gives John the preference. He, and not
the other evangelists, has repeated the true substance
of the Lord's discourses concerning the last things.
All this in spite of the fact, that Jesus, according

58 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
to Schenkel, cannot have made such long speeches
during the last evening ; in spite of the fact, that
these discourses serve at other times as proof that
this Gospel is not genuine. His decision in these
instances also rests upon merely subjective ground.
Schenkel needs the discourse in the sixth chapter
of John, about the bread of heaven, to explain the
rise of the legend of the loaves and fishes ; and he
does not like the realism of the Lord's discourses
about the last things in the first evangelists, so well
as the supposed spiritualistic idea of John.
This may suffice. And I may add, as the result
of our examination, that Schenkel's treatment of
the authorities is thoroughly uncritical and unhis
torical, full of ambiguity, conformed to dogmatic
presumptions and subjective arbitrariness. What
would be said if any one were to treat in this way
the authorities for the history of Luther or of Fred
eric II. ?
If we now pass on to consider what it is that
Schenkel gets in this way, it is clear that the gist
of his whole representation is the development of
the Messianic consciousness of Jesus. Jesus was
not conscious of being the Messiah at his first ap
pearance, but came gradually to this consciousness
under the opposition of the high-church party.
According to the Gospels, to be sure, this is not
true. Schenkel must reject direct testimony upon
this point, — even that of his highly respected Mark,
according to which Jesus came forth fully conscious
of being the Messiah. Let us overlook this, how-

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 59
ever, and ask whether this representation is possibly
historical. Not as Messiah did Jesus appear, but
as deliverer, as saviour of his people, as founder of a
new religious communion ; or he foreboded at least
that the revival of the nation's life should proceed
from him. But according to the prophets, accord
ing to the hopes then living in the Jewish people,
the Messiah should be all these things. Could
Jesus think that he was called to revive his people ;
could he believe himself to be the saviour, the deli
verer of the people, the founder of a new religious
communion, — without at once recognizing himself
as the Messiah? This seems utterly impossible.
Schenkel himself could not avoid this difficulty.
He thinks, however, .that he can solve it by repre
senting the Messianic hope, not merely as it then
lived in the people, but also as it was originally in
the prophecies of the Old Testament ; as one which
aimed only at external dominion, at the spread of
the theocracy over the whole earth. For this reason,
he thinks, Jesus could not believe himself to be the
Messiah ; he was obliged rather to oppose most de
cidedly these Messianic hopes. Let it be granted
for a moment, — what I do not otherwise admit, —
that these hopes were solely national and theocratic :
this did not prevent Jesus afterwards, in Schenkel's
opinion, from declaring himself to be the Messiah ;
why then should it have prevented him in the be
ginning ? He could have applied the pure meaning
of these promises to himself at first, as well as at
last, when Schenkel provides for it. And even if it

60 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
is admitted that he could not have done it, because
of reasons that are not made clear to us, no one
can deny that Jesus had to accommodate himself
to these hopes ; and at the beginning too, unless we
assume that he came forth without knowing what
he wanted. That was unavoidable. If he could not
have believed himself to be the Messiah, he would
necessarily have been sure that he was not the
Messiah ; and we should thus reach the conclusion,
which even Schenkel would like to evade, — namely,
that Jesus confessed at first that he was not the
Messiah, but was afterwards forced to the directly
opposite confession. This is perplexing ; but it is
not so perplexing as the description of the way in
which opposition to the hierarchy, and to the nature
of the law, gradually led the Lord to a clear con
sciousness of his call to be the Messiah. Since Jesus,
at the time of his baptism, was convinced " that the
theocracy was no longer equal to the work of re
generating the Israelitish people ; " * since, in the
solitude of the wilderness, he could think of no way
" but to break entirely with the theocracy ; to arm
himself for a life-and-death struggle," f — we should
suppose that all was decided ; and we are at a loss
when it is afterwards asserted, as if for the first
time, that "the rupture was unavoidable." $ If
Jesus, at the commencement of his work, abandoned
all respect for the theocracy, and permitted the dis-
* Schenkel's Char., S. 35 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 74).
t Schenkel's Char., S. 40 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 90).
t Schenkel's Char., S. 62 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 140).

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 61
ciples intentionally to break the Sabbath, Schenkel
is right in saying " the opposing forces on both sides
had reached their acme ; " * but it is hard to find out
where a further development was to come from. If
Jesus, in the initiatory discourse in the Sermon on
the Mount, had " solemnly withdrawn himself from
all living connection with the Jewish hierarchy and
theology," f what is meant by saying that after
wards, for the first time, " he changed to an attitude
of open and vehement attack ? " J I am still less able
to understand how all this can have served to clear
his Messianic consciousness.
In one word, the whole development is mere
show. There is no real development there. This
will be still more evident if we compare Schenkel
with Renan. In Renan we have a real develop
ment at the cost of introducing the factor of sin
into the life of Jesus. Jesus sins, and is ruined.
Schenkel shrinks from saying this. His Jesus must
not sin, must not incur guilt ; but he is nevertheless
supposed to have developed just as other great men
have done. This is a mere show of development.
It must not be overlooked, that the comparison in
one respect results in Schenkel's favor. It must be
acknowledged, — and I wish distinctly to declare it,
— that in him there is none of Renan's frivolity. He
is evidently concerned to represent Jesus as morally
pure, — yes, as sinless. But it is equally clear that

* Schenkel's Char., S. 65 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 145).
t Schenkel's Char., S. 74 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 164).
f Schenkel's Char., S. 179 (Furness's Trans., vol. ii. p. 195).

62 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
he does not succeed in this. He feels that, in an en
tirely sinless Jesus, the kind of development which
he wishes to represent is impossible : therefore he
discourses about great inner struggles and storms,
which Jesus is supposed to have experienced, about
great temptations which he had to overcome. He
thus puts the sinlessness in doubt; for where in
ner storms and temptations are, there is sin. This
also is mere ambiguity. Sin is not kept entirely
away from the Christ of Schenkel, but just far
enough away to prevent it from attaining such a
development in him as in the Christ of Renan.
Schenkel's Christ wavers unsteadily between the
sinful Christ of Renan and the sinless Christ of
the Church.
Schenkel has tried to make up for the lack of
inner life in his development, by the coloring of his
representation. Jesus is the man of the people, —
who took an interest in the poor, oppressed people,
who went about and taught and labored among
the people, and for the people suffered and died.
The men of the people are to him " the men of the
Christian future." * His enemies are the " high-
church party," "the theologues," — the stubborn
bigots, the priesthood. His task is to do away
with the law (again and again is this word re
peated throughout the book), the artificial, empty,
dead, creed-bound churchdom. His religion is that
of humanity, — "the religion of the love of man,
cleansed from the prejudices of religion and place, '
* Schenkel's Char., S. 60 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 136).

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 63
from all prepossessions, official and national," * the
way of eternal life. The religious communion of the
New Testament is to be founded, not upon official
authority and scholasticism, not upon theology and
clergy, not upon privileged orders, but upon the
love of the people. Jesus thus proclaims the re
ligion free from every ceremonial statute, proclaims
the freedom of worship, proclaims human worth
and human rights, proclaims the socialistic prin
ciple. By not excluding Judas from the last supper,
he showed that all Church discipline is useless ; he
has not tied the communion to a definite prepara
tion, or to a definite creed, but has granted to every
one absolute freedom to partake of it. You per
ceive the Jesus of Schenkel expresses himself very
decidedly about the questions of to-day : he is the
genuine demagogue of the present, who, with his
struggle against the law and against feudal pre
judices, might come out with applause everywhere
in behalf of free religion and the socialistic prin
ciple. But that is not the historical Jesus, the
Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus of 'Peter and Paul.
He proclaimed neither free religion nor human
rights : he did not proclaim any thing ; for he did
" not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard
in the street."! It is true that he did not court the
favor of the privileged classes ; but it is also true
that he did not, like Schenkel's Jesus, flatter the peo
ple without teaching them that every thing must be
* Schenkel's Char., S. 127 (Furness's Trans., vol. ii. p. 86).
t Isaiah xiii. 2 (Matthew xii. 19).

64 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
built up from below, from the good-will and pure dis
position of the people. This portrait of Christ is
really as unhistorical as Renan's. While Renan's
" Life of Jesus " is a romance, Schenkel's " Charac
ter of Jesus" is a party-pamphlet, in which the
enemies of the Lord are so drawn, that they look
precisely like Schenkel's enemies, — that is, as he
represents them to himself, — and in which words are
put into the mouth of the Lord which plainly show that
he is fighting directly for Schenkel and his party.
There is at present a kind of historical writing,
which is fond of borrowing the colors for its pictures
directly from the present time. The constitutional
contests of the Roman republic are related as if
writers were telling about the constitutional contests
of yesterday. It may seem as if in this way history
might be brought home to us, and made fruitful for
the present. I am not of that opinion. This kind
of historical composition lacks the chief thing,
without which the history of the past cannot be the
teacher of the present: it lacks the truth. Most
decidedly must it be rejected, when the sacred his
tory is so treated. If anybody wishes to write a
party-pamphlet, let him write one ; but he desecrates
what is most holy when he misuses the life of
Jesus in the service of party-warfare, in order to
make a party-pamphlet out of that.
Such are the facts concerning one of the two
predicates which Schenkel claims for his " Char
acter of Jesus ; " namely, " truly historical." Let
us now see what the other is worth ; namely, " gen-

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 65
uinely human." It must first be asked what
Schenkel means by this. " Genuinely human "
the Church also believes her Christ to be ; she has
at all times laid as much stress upon this, that
Christ is truly man, as upon the fact that he is truly
God. But this doctrine of the two natures in
Christ asserts what is utterly impossible, according
to Schenkel. Such a twofold being, God and man
in one, is inconceivable. If he is truly God, he
cannot be truly man. It is plain that with Schenkel
genuinely human means only human. With this
idea he proceeds to describe Christ for us as a mere
man. But although a mere man, wholly within
the bounds of human nature, as Schenkel likes to
express it, Jesus is nevertheless said to be the
archetype of humanity, the light of the world, the
only one who has revealed the ideal of godly life
as perfectly as is possible within the bounds of
human nature. Schenkel does not even hesitate
to call him the only-begotten Son of God, and
speaks of his divinity, which, to be sure, is said to
be not an essential equality with God, but a moral
oneness, a perfectly sinless agreement of his will
with the will of the Father.
The question arises whether these two assertions
are consistent with each other, — a mere man, and
sinless. If Jesus was only a man, it is inexplicable
how he, and he alone of all men, should be perfectly
sinless. His life was' wholly within the bounds of
human nature ; and yet is he said to be the single
Example, the archetype, the light of the world ? If
5

66 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
he is only a man, he cannot be the single Example,
the ideal that shall rule for ever. He may be a
remarkable personage, to whom our race is much
indebted: but he is one among others, there are
others by his side ; and if they are inferior to him
'in some respects, in other respects they surpass him.
Thus, brought within the course of the develop
ment of our race, he may always mark one of its
greatest eras, but not the absolute acme of human
greatness. There can ,be no such person. We
stand upon the ground of relativity ; and it is a
contradiction to say of any one, that he is only a
man, and yet the single Example for all time, the
light of the world. If Schenkel is decided that
there is nothing supernatural in Jesus, nothing but
a human nature, no capacity in him which does not
belong to human nature in general, then he must
cease to call him the single Example, the archetype,
the light of the world. If he still does it, then
either these high predicates are not seriously meant,
or his portrait has no claim, according to his own
premises, to be " genuinely human."
Let us, I pray you, look these things straight in
the face. All equivocation must vanish here where
the really decisive point is at stake, — the heart and
centre of our faith. Schenkel says that we cannot
have faith in the rationalistic Christ. He wishes,
then, for a Christ in whom we can have faith ; and
his Christ is doubtless meant to be such a one. Let
us see. We can have faith only in God. That is a
simple but fundamental proposition ; without holding

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 67
it fast, Christianity ceases to be monotheistic, sinks
below Mohammedanism, down to the grade of hea
thenism. It is also a proposition which the old
rationalism maintained in its day without equivoca
tion, and with a moral energy which might well be
imitated at the present time. We are now obliged
to confront the following alternative: Either the
Christ of Schenkel is a mere man like other men,
remarkable, perhaps the most remarkable of all,
but only within the bounds of human nature, — and
hence we dare not have faith in him ; hence the
want is not satisfied, the want which Schenkel him
self feels, of a Christ in whom we can have faith :
or we can have faith in him, — and hence he is not
a mere man ; and the task which Schenkel has
undertaken of giving us a " genuinely human "
Christ, is not performed.
No one has exposed the contradictions in which
Schenkel has entangled himself more acutely than
Strauss. With a consistency which leaves nothing
to be desired, he has laid bare the ambiguity of
Schenkel's position. In his view, Schenkel's sinless
Christ is as great a miracle as the Church's Son of
God, born of a virgin ; and still more inconceivable,
since the Church acts in general on the ground of
the supernatural and miraculous, while Schenkel re
jects this, and yet admits the miracle of a sinless
Christ. He shows, with acute severity, the incon
sistency of Schenkel's propositions. If the perfec
tion of Christ is only such as is possible within the
bounds of human nature, then such perfection must

68 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
be possible for all who share in human nature ; and,
as always happens with other perfections of which
human nature is capable, must, in some instances at
least, have come to pass. The Church says absolute
perfection is only possible for Christ, and therefore
came to pass only in him ; and this is clearly correct
logic. Schenkel says relative perfection is possible
for all men, but came to pass only in Christ, —
which is as absurd as it would be to say, that per
fection was only possible for Christ, but came to
pass in other men.
There is no such ambiguity in Strauss. With
him there is perfect consistency, which shrinks
from no result; perfect candor, which scorns to
conceal -its aim. Strauss, without any reserve,
proposes to destroy the illusion of miracles. The
irrefragable part of Christianity is, that it has
raised mankind above the sensuous religion of the
Greeks, and above the legal religion of the Jews ;
but the faith that a spiritual, moral power rules
the world, and the knowledge that the service of
this power must be spiritual and moral, — all this,
says Strauss, has not really amounted to any thing in
Christianity up to this time. Even Protestantism
still depends upon a number of external perform
ances, which are no better than Jewish ceremonies.
The cause of this is the illusion of miracles. As
long as Christianity is regarded as something out
wardly given, Christ as one who has come from
heaven, the Church as an institution for expiation
through his blood, — so long is the religion of

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 69
the Spirit itself unspiritual ; Christianity is a Jew
ish idea. The task of the present day is to de
stroy this illusion of miracles. This is also the
only means of success for the agitation in behalf of
a freer Church constitution, which Strauss looks
down upon rather contemptuously. " He who would
banish priests from the Church must first banish
miracles from religion."*
Strauss is perfectly serious in this intention. No
trace of accommodation can be found in him. Jesus
is a man like other men ; a remarkable person, who
has rendered great service to mankind, by first ex
pressing the ideas of the religion of the Spirit:
but he is not the single Example, — the archetype.
Strauss thinks that to say, as Schenkel says, Jesus
is the light of the world, is dishonest flattery. Sin
lessness, perfection, of course, cannot be attributed
to him: that belongs to the supernatural illusion
about Jesus. He had great gifts, but he also had
his failings ; he occupies an important place in his
tory, but he had his predecessors, and he will have
successors. Strauss is equally consistent in his treatment
of the authorities. He does not use the Gospel of
John at one time as an unhistorical book, and at
another as a good historical authority ; he does not
accept one story and reject the rest, nor separate
in the same story an historical kernel from a legend
ary hull. Strauss is not given to such tricks. The
* Strauss'sLeben Jesu (gearbeitet), S. xix. (Authorized Trans., vol. i.
p. xvi.).

70 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
Gospel which he judges to be the earliest of all —
the Gospel of Matthew — is merely a cloudy me
dium, obscured by the lapse of time, and by all
sorts of intervening events. At the early day of
its composition, much may have been already lost ;
many a significant word, many an act, of Jesus
may have been forgotten. Much also may have
been added ; words which he did not speak, deeds
which he did not do, events which did not take
place. The authorities, therefore, do not furnish mate
rials for a sure, life-like picture of Jesus. " Peo
ple do not like to hear it," — thus Strauss concludes
his investigations, — "and therefore they do not
believe it ; but whoever has thoroughly studied the
subject, and is candid, knows as well as we do, that
history gives us concerning few great men such
unsatisfactory information as concerning Jesus."*
The figure of Socrates, for instance, four hundred
years older, is incomparably more distinct. What
Strauss gives as the life of Jesus is therefore ex
tremely barren. He knows nothing certainly about
him, except that he was born, that he taught, and
that he died. What he taught can seldom be deter
mined with certainty. The case is not so bad as has
been asserted, — that it is impossible to learn that
any one of the sayings attributed by the Gospels to
Jesus were said by him. There are some which we
* Strauss's Leben Jesu (gearbeitet), S. 621. [This passage begins the
second paragraph of the Conclusion of Strauss's work, and may probably
be found at the end of vol. ii. of the Authorized Trans. — The translator
has been unable to get that volume.]

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 71
may, in all probability, ascribe to Jesus ; but this
probability, approaching nearly to certainty, does
not extend very far, and the case looks much worse
for the acts and general occurrences of the life of
Jesus, excepting his journey to Jerusalem. It is
unnecessary to go into details. I could say little
more than what has just been said. We must dis
pense entirely with details of the life of Jesus.
For instance, from the account of the youth of Jesus,
we know certainly only that he was born in Naza
reth, that his father was probably a carpenter ; and
we may also suppose, that, in the names of his
parents Joseph and Mary, there is a remnant of
historical fact. The later periods of his life are
furnished with like scantiness. Such events even
as the solemn entry of Jesus into Jerusalem receive
no quarter from Strauss's criticism. We are left
again wholly in the dark.
We must in the first place acknowledge the candor
of Strauss. He disdained to put into the empty place
an image of his own make, a Christ of romance
like Renan's, or a partisan Christ like Schen
kel's. He simply left the place empty. We must
content ourselves with not knowing who Christ was.
One is involuntarily reminded of the saying of the
man who was born blind (John' ix. 30), " Why,
herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from
whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes."
A marvellous thing indeed ! From this Jesus pro
ceeds a movement which revolutionizes the world ;
and we know less about his life than we know about

72 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
the life of Socrates, who also exerted an influence,
to be sure, but in a comparatively temporary and
narrow circle. If such a deep movement really pro
ceeded from Jesus, he must have made an impres
sion upon his disciples, and must have left this
impression, the likeness of himself, in their mem
ory. Can it be said, that, scarcely half a century
afterwards, all traces of this portrait were lost,
and an entirely different, essentially false one had
taken its place ? A still more wonderful thing
remains. This Jesus preaches the pure religion
of the spirit; his disciples, — in whom, as Strauss
expresses it, a thick layer of Jewish prejudices
prevented the pure conception of the Messianic idea
— did not understand him at all ; put something
totally different in its place, an unspiritual, substan
tially Jewish religion : and this, nevertheless, con
quers the world. Strauss cannot, if he would, do
away with the fact, that not his Christ, but the Christ
of the Gospels ; not his Christianity, but the Chris
tianity of the apostles, — conquered the world, and
has ruled it up to this time. The disciples there
fore, or whoever made the representations of Christ
in the Gospels, are the founders of this Christianity,
which, though it is not the true one of Strauss, is
the world-conquering and world-governing Christi
anity. How did the disciples get the idea of this
Christ ? Very simply : by reasoning from the Old-
Testament prophecies to their fulfilment in Jesus,
by the constantly repeated argument, — this or that
was prophesied of the Messiah and is expected of

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 73
him, therefore he must have done it, spoken it, suf
fered it. This is the reasoning from which the idea
of Christ in the Gospels, and with it all Christianity,
arose. This, in the words of Lessing, is like hang
ing the world on the threads of a spider's web.
The question now is, How did the disciples come to
this conclusion ? There must have been something
to lead them to argue in this way. They could not
have drawn this illogical conclusion out of nothing.
If Jesus was no more, if he did no more than
Strauss admits, if he made no greater impression,
this conclusion is an utter impossibility.
Strauss shifts off the claim made in my first dis
course that whoever denies the supernatural origin
of Christianity must first prove its natural origin,
by saying that this proof should not be demanded,
because the extant authorities are not sufficient for
it. Then we will modify our claim to this, that at
least we shall not be asked to accept as history such
evidently impossible and self-contradictory theories
as these, — that the disciples, narrowed by Jewish
prejudices, originated such a representation of Christ ;
and that the world-conquering movement of Christi
anity is based upon such an argument as that from
the prophecy to the fulfilment.
How each one of these home-made pictures of
Christ reflects the likeness of the man who made it!
— a plain sign that it is merely his own fabrication.
In Renan's Christ, we see the likeness of the ready,
ingenious, sometimes charming, sometimes frivolous
Frenchman ; in Schenkel's Christ, we see the like-

74 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
ness of the ecclesiastical agitator ; and, in Strauss's
Christ, we see the likeness of* the learned theorist,
who builds the whole world on an inference.
All these things are substantially the same that
Strauss discovered thirty years ago, and offered to
the world. His standpoint remains the same, and
his book is at bottom only a new edition of the ear
lier work. The development of criticism, during
the last thirty years, has shown clearly enough that
this was a failure.
We can hardly judge otherwise of Schenkel's
book. In him the old rationalism has re-appeared.
This is why Strauss attacks Schenkel so violently.
It is his old enemy, rationalism, whom he fights in
him. In no theologian of the present day are there
so many characteristics of this as in Schenkel. He
has the same doctrine of the accommodation of the
Lord, the same natural explanation of miracles.
For instance, in the treatment of the miracle at the
wedding in Cana, or of the loaves and fishes, there
is hardly any difference between him and the old
Paulus of Heidelberg. His result is also substan
tially the same : Jesus is a wise teacher, who has
freed us from the yoke of the law. He has, besides
this, only put a new piece or two on the old gar
ment, and given to the whole a somewhat differ
ent coloring, corresponding more to the present
time. To this coloring belong a number of orthodox-
sounding forms of speech, which are meant to be
very differently understood. Schenkel speaks of
miracles, but means a gift of nature ; of the divinity

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 75
of Christ, but means only a moral agreement with
God ; of an atonement for the sin of the world, but
means only that men have discovered that God will
not judge by the letter ; of -redemption, but means
only redemption from the law. Strip this all off,
give to Schenkel's words their true meaning, and
the Christ of Schenkel is, in all its principal feat
ures, the Christ of the old rationalism.
What does this imply ? How can we explain this
falling-back to a standpoint long ago surmounted ?
Schenkel desires, above all things, to influence the
people. In him the theologian is ruled entirely by
the ecclesiastical party-leader. Since he began to
be that, he has essentially modified his theology.
Schenkel's effort is, not to found a new theological
school, but a Church with a new constitution and a
new creed. For this he needs the people, and not
that part of it (which, is altogether only a small
fragment) that is utterly indifferent to the Church
and Christianity, that would rather dispense with
them entirely ; but the part which, while not agree
ing with the old creed, still wishes to have a Church,
still wishes to celebrate Christmas and Easter, and
does not like to dispense with Sunday, with baptism,
and the Lord's Supper. In this part of our people,
the force of the old rationalism is still dominant.
The people do not understand the pantheism of
Strauss, or his ideal Christ, and would shrink in
horror from his radicalism. They understand only
the old rationalism ; and a natural instinct has drawn
Schenkel thither. The whole movement of late

76 THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS.
years, which has had Schenkel for its party-leader,
is nothing but a re-action of the still surviving force
of the old rationalism against the mightily growing
strength of the faith. Schenkel, in his " Character
of Jesus," has tried to draw for this tendency its
Christ; and it is not surprising that the portrait
bears the features of the Christ of the old ration
alism. Here lies the danger of the book. The work of
Strauss I regard, at this moment, as less dangerous.
According to its title, it is written for the people;
but the people will not understand it, and there
fore will not read it. Schenkel's book, also, is far
from being written in a popular style ; but his Christ
has an affinity with the tendency which still sways a
large part of our people. There is nevertheless a
consolation. You cannot bring a dead man to life
again, though you deck him with ever so many
spangles, and thrust him with great bombast upon
the stage. Such ambiguity as Schenkel's can gain
much influence for a time, but never for a long
time. The advancing controversy sets it aside ; and
the decision, long delayed, then comes so much the
quicker. There is no need of very sharp eyes to
see that Schenkel's Christ will not live long.
Many at the present day, and many, as I believe, of
honest hearts, give themselves up to the hope that
they have found here an accommodation between
the old faith and the ideas of the nineteenth cen
tury, and rejoice that they still remain Christians;
but it will be shown soon enough that what they

THE VIEWS OF SCHENKEL AND STRAUSS. 77
thought accommodation was merely an ambiguity,
which withstood no serious attack. The fight, wax
ing hotter, will force decision, and will soon leave no
other choice than either, with Strauss, to do away
altogether with the so-called illusion of miracles, to
set aside every thing supernatural in Christianity,
and with it Christianity itself; or, with the Fathers,
to stand by the old Christ, whom we do not first
have to seek for, whom the Church has always had,
and, thank God, still has.
I have endeavored to set before you the chief
modern representations of the life of Jesus. My
task, however, is not yet finished. The judgment
concerning the view of the Church on the one hand,
and these modern representations on the other, de
pends especially upon two questions, which we have
already been obliged to touch upon in various ways.
The first question is, Have we in the writings of the
New Testament, particularly in the Gospels, really
sure and sufficient historical authorities for the life
of Jesus ? The next question is concerning mira
cles, Are there miracles, or not ? I propose to dis
cuss these questions in two more discourses.

THIRD DISCOURSE.
THE GOSPELS.

A T the close of the preceding discourse, I re-
•*^- marked that there were two principal questions, J j .
upon which depended the judgment concerning the
modern representations of Jesus on the one hand,
and, to put it briefly, concerning the Church's view
on the other hand. The first question related to the
authorities : Have we in the writings of the New
Testament, particularly in the Gospels, really trust
worthy historical authorities for the life of Jesus ?
The next question related to miracles : Are there
miracles, or not ? The modern representations of
the life of Jesus are based upon negative answers
to both these questions : the view of the Church
presupposes affirmative answers to both of them.
It is true, each question is involved in the other.
The following is among the chief reasons urged
against our Gospels as trustworthy authorities:
They relate incredible things ; things which could not
have taken place, — miracles. Then, again, when we
appeal to the Gospels to prove the actual occurrence

THE GOSPELS. 79
of miracles, our appeal is rejected, with the asser
tion, that the Gospels do not contain pure history,
but merely a mixture of history and more or less
legend and fiction ; legendary, embellished history.
I must, therefore, ask you beforehand to permit me,
not only to distinguish the first question from the
second, but also to keep the two questions entirely
separate ; otherwise, an unbiassed examination of
the first question is impossible. If any one ap
proaches the Gospels with the presumption that no
miracle is possible, their sentence is already pro
nounced; for they are full of miraculous stories,
and further investigation is superfluous. The ques
tion whether miracles have occurred, and can occur,
shall occupy us, God willing, at our next meeting :
to-day, therefore, let us leave this entirely out of
view, and examine (this question always excepted)
the authorities for the history of Jesus, as impar
tially as a biographer, before he writes the life of
any one, examines the authorities from which he
must draw.
The only sources of information about the life
of Jesus are the writings of the New Testament.
Interesting as it would be to know what Jewish and
Gentile contemporaries may have told about him
and may have thought of him, that is impossible.
What we have is insignificant and worthless. One
passage of the Jewish historian Josephus, who
lived at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem,
and commanded a troop in the Jewish war against
the Romans, is so uncertain in its text, that it

80 THE GOSPELS.
thereby loses its value. What is furnished by
Jewish tradition is of uncertain age, and is too
much colored by hatred of Jesus to deserve further
attention. Now and then, to be sure, bookselling
industry brings to market such books as " Jesus the
Essene," "Letters of an Essene concerning Jesus,"
and the like, which pretend to contain contemporane
ous accounts concerning Jesus : this is mere impos
ture. The Gentiles are the same as silent ; whenever
they speak, they tell what they have learned from
Christians : there remain for us only the writings of
the New Testament. Before we begin to examine
them, it may be well to premise some remarks of
a general character, in order to get a view at the
outset of what we have to expect.
We ask first, Are we, on the whole, upon ground
where we may expect true history ? The answer is,
Yes : we stand in a perfectly historical period, whose
life is, in general, as clear and transparent to us as
any period of antiquity can be. It is important to
bring this home to our minds, for the case would be
very different if the origin of Christianity fell in an
age which could not pretend to established history.
The facts of the origin of Christianity did not hap
pen in secret or in a corner, but took place in the
open day, before the eyes of a whole people, whose
own magistrates, the supreme council and the Ro
man governor, were concerned in them.
We ask next, Was there an interest in this his
tory among the circles of the primitive Christians, ;
— an interest to explore it, and to transmit it safely ?

THE GOSPELS. 81
It must be answered, Yes; in the highest degree.
The preaching of the gospel was at the start the
relation of history : it had to be so. When the
apostles went forth preaching Jesus is the Christ,
no one knew who this Christ was ; therefore they
were obliged to begin by telling their hearers the
history of Jesus. Without relating history, they
could not advance a step. So essential was the his
torical account to the growth of the Church, that
Paul mentions, among the offices with which the
Church was furnished, an office of evangelists. The
history of Jesus, the history of his work, is intrinsi
cally the object of the Christian faith, Christianity
is not a system of doctrine, which one can propound
without imparting any thing concerning him who
established it : it is history. Never has any religious
communion had a greater interest in the history of
its founder than the Christian Church. How dif
ferent are the relations of Mohammedanism to its
founder! and yet active exertions are now being
made to establish securely the tradition concerning
Mohammed and the founding of Islam. We cannot
suppose that the oldest Church should not also have
done what it could in this respect. It is hard to
believe that it carelessly permitted legend to be sub
stituted for history : there are sure signs also to the
contrary. I will mention only a single instance, —
the carefulness with which Paul, in the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, specifies the witnesses of the
resurrection. We should by no means suppose that
he only preached Christ is risen ! Upon this state-
6

82 THE GOSPELS.
ment he would have received as little credit at that
day, as any one would receive at the present time,
who should say that So-and-so has risen from the
dead. He brought witnesses who had seen the
risen Christ to corroborate his own testimony. It
has been said, in order to make the whole ground
insecure from beginning to end, that that age made
no use, in Christian circles at least, of criticism;
that it was wholly uncritical ; that, consequently, a
reliable judgment concerning what are and what
are not trustworthy authorities is not to be ex
pected from it. That age certainly did know little
of what is now called criticism : instead of it, it pos
sessed in a high degree what was then, as now, the
chief thing in all criticism, — appreciation of the
truth. Besides, since the history in question was
such as to involve the hatred of the whole world
when it was professed, and might lead to disgrace
and even to death, people were apt to inquire
carefully beforehand upon what ground it rested.
Every thing is opposed to the view, that the Church
acted so uncritically as to accept any thing that
seemed edifying, without regard for its truth. Ter
tullian incidentally speaks of a presbyter who
forged a history about Paul and Thekla, and pub
lished it as true. When this was discovered, he
was punished by removal from office. That does
not agree very well with the assertion, that the
age was wholly uncritical. The Church used actual
criticism upon the Gospels, since it selected our
four Gospels from a number of others.

THE GOSPELS. 83
But I will not begin with the Gospels : that ground
is too disputed to start from. Let us start from
ground that is entirely undisputed, — from the four
Epistles of Paul, which the most extreme criticism
has been obliged to let stand. These are the
Epistle to the Romans, the two Epistles to the
Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Galatians. That
they are genuine writings, really composed by the
Apostle Paul, is established beyond the possibility
of a doubt. Let us see what they contain concern
ing the history of Jesus.
It may, perhaps, appear strange that there is so
little of this. The apostle seldom relates any thing
about Jesus, and seldom quotes a word from him.
Reflection, however, makes the explanation easy.
The Epistles were not written to interest Jews or
Gentiles in Christ for the first time, but to guide
and to strengthen in their faith those who had been
previously won. It is evident to the careful reader,
that Paul always presupposes an historical founda
tion : the life of Jesus is known to his readers ; a
detailed historical account has clearly gone before.
Paul refers to this only when it is necessary. How
often he alludes to what he has already told them,
— to "his gospel" (Rom- ii- 16) ! When there is
occasion for it, some particular is mentioned, some
thing is occasionally given in detail, — such as the
institution of the Lord's Supper, and the account of
the resurrection.
By collecting what the Epistles give in this way,
we get the chief facts of the life of Jesus, — his de-

84 THE GOSPELS.
scent from the family of David (Rom. i. 3); his
birth from a woman (1 Cor. xi. 23, et seq.} ; his
crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor.
xv. 1, et seq.). We can infer still more with perfect
certainty. The way in which Paul speaks of bap
tism (Rom. vi. 4 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; 1 Cor. i. 17 ; Gal.
iii. 27, et al.~) certainly leads us to the inference, that
he recognized it as established by Christ ; and when
he traces to the Lord the miraculous power of the
apostles (1 Cor. xii., et al.~), he must regard Christ
as the most original and the richest possessor of
this power. Paul gives few details, for the reason
just stated ; but those which he gives agree entirely
with the evangelical accounts, — for instance, that
the rulers of Israel were guilty of Jesus' death (1
Cor. ii. 8) ; that he was betrayed (1 Cor. xi. 23) ;
that he rose again the third day (1 Cor. xv. 4).
Paul's whole representation of Jesus is precisely
the same as that of the Gospels. Jesus, in his view,
is not merely the sinless, holy man (1 Cor. xv. 21 ;
Rom. v. 19) : he is more than man, — he is the Son
of God (Rom. i. 4 ; Gal. iv. 4, et al.~) and the son of
David, who was rich in divine glory, and for our
sakes became poor (2 Cor. viii. 9) ; he is the medi
ator in the creation of the world (1 Cor. viii. 6) ;
the man from heaven (1 Cor. xv. 47), who now sits
at the right hand of God (Rom. viii. 34), and shall
come back from heaven to judge the world (Rom.
ii. 16) ; he is Lord in the highest sense, the object
and substance of faith and of worship. We need
only read these four Epistles of Paul to become

THE GOSPELS. 85
convinced that the Christ of Paul was a different per
son from him whom Renan, Strauss, and Schenkel
now offer us as the truly historical Christ.
Paul was not the only individual who believed in
this Christ. Add to his Epistles the first Epistle of
Peter, which all sober criticism must admit to be a
genuine Epistle of this apostle. Here also is the
same idea of Christ. Take the Revelation of John,
which, according to modern criticism, passes for a
genuine writing of the apostle. Whether it is
really his, or is the work of another John (opinions
still differ, about it), at all events it is a writing
of the apostolic age, and it gives no other idea of
Christ. In it he is the First and the Living One,
the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. i. 8, 11, et al.j, the
object of divine veneration and worship (Rev. i. 17,
et al.j. The Church can comfort herself, therefore,
with the assurance that her own idea of Christ is
that of the apostolic age, — is that of Peter and
Paul, and of the apostolic man who wrote the
Apocalypse. If this idea is said to be false, consider what the
assertion means. It means no less than that the
apostolic age, — that the very persons, part of whom
were eye-witnesses, part of whom were acquainted
with eye-witnesses, formed for themselves a false
idea of the Lord. If it is said that the Church
afterwards erroneously deified the man Jesus, and
this is the error from which Christianity must be
freed, in order to recover its original purity, we
reply that this pretended error at least began very

86 THE GOSPELS.
soon, so soon, that pure Christianity — pure accord
ing to such notions of purity — never existed. Any
one is at liberty, of course, to discard the idea of
Christ given by Peter and Paul ; but then let him
be honest enough to say so: he can put another
representation in its place, and then let him not act
as if he could summon the apostolic age as evidence
in its favor, but openly say that this portrait of
Christ is of his own make. If we had not a single
line more from the apostolic age than the writings
just cited, these documents alone would be sufficient
to enable us to say with perfect certainty, the Christ
of Renan, of Strauss, and of Schenkel, is not the
truly historical Christ.
As we now turn to the Gospels, we must think
of their origin as simply and naturally as possible.
It is true that over all and in all rules the Holy
Spirit, whose task, as the Lord expressly indicated,
was to remind his disciples of all that he had said
unto them, taking care that the future Church
should not lack a sure, sufficient likeness of her
Founder and Head for her faith and life. The way
of the Spirit, however, is not to suppress what is
natural, but to purify it ; and it is with this human,
natural side of the formation of the Gospels that
we have now to deal. It is self-evident that not the
written record, but the oral tradition, of the acts
and speeches of the Lord came first; especially
since the thoughts and hopes of the primitive Chris
tians were not directed towards a distant future of
the Church upon earth, but towards a 'speedy sec-

THE GOSPELS. 87
ond-coming of the Lord. The written record is
only the final, most perfect account of this oral
tradition. At first every eye-witness and ear-witness related
what he had seen or heard ; and while the apostles,
who had accompanied Jesus during his whole public
ministry, were thereby able to give the fullest and
most correct information concerning his life, they
were of course followed by others, who collected,
in addition to what they had themselves seen, re
ports from other witnesses. Groups and series of
stories about the Lord and his discourses were
formed. People took pleasure in telling and hear
ing as much as possible of what the Lord said
and did; but they did not undertake to collect
all of his words, or to recount all of his miracles.
The entire history which we possess is only a
selection ; and this selection was, humanly speak
ing, influenced by all sorts of accidental circum
stances. People from Galilee must have gladly
and often told stories of the Galilean ministry of
the Lord ; and, since the majority of his first follow
ers were Galileans, the Galilean stories formed the
largest part of the oral tradition, from the begin
ning to the end. When some one who had been
healed by the Lord became afterwards an active
member of the Church, an especial interest was
then attached to the story of this cure ; for they had
the living witness there with them. It is probable,
for instance, that we owe to some such circum
stance the mention of the name of the blind Bar-

88 THE GOSPELS.
timseus, the son of Timseus (Mark x. 46) ; or the
mention of Simon the Cyrenian, the father of Alex
ander and Rufus (Mark xv. 21). Bartimseus,
Alexander, and Rufus were known as members of
the Church ; and the story was naturally told with
the familiar names. In other cases the names were
soon lost, as in every popular tale ; and the story
was told merely of a leper or a paralytic, without
any names. The same thing happened with ac
counts of times and places. There was no special
interest in these at first. The main point was, that
the Lord had healed this or that sick person, had
spoken this or that word ; and it was not very im
portant when and where he had done it. These oral
traditions concerning the life of the Lord should
not, therefore, be thought of as a complete biogra
phy, with every fact and date correctly arranged ;
although the chief points, his death and his resur
rection, must have been contained in every ac
count. The desire must have early arisen to commit to
writing what had been orally transmitted. A record
of what had been heard was important for one's self,
and useful as a means of enlightening foreign breth
ren who asked for information. The first records
naturally originated in this way. These did not
comprehend every thing, but were simple tran
scripts of the oral tradition. The wider the Church
spread, the farther time advanced, the greater the
interest in written records necessarily became ; and,
apart from other evidence, the introduction to the

THE GOSPELS. »i-
Gospel of Luke shows plainly enough that there
were a great number of writings besides our Gos
pels, which related more or less correctly the life
and ministry of the Lord. Our first three Gospels
form the most complete result of this process, and
have therefore been acknowledged by the Church.
These must be first considered apart from the
fourth Gospel. The fourth Gospel stands entirely
alone ; for, as we see at a glance, it gives much
that is different, recounts different miracles, repeats
different discourses, from the first three Gospels.
These three, as no one who has read them can
fail to observe, are most intimately connected with
one another. They not only tell substantially the
same story, but they frequently agree in the style
of narration, and in the very words. They are so
much alike, that we have their accounts put side by
side, as parallels. This combination is called " syn
opsis," a word derived from the Greek ; and hence
the first three Gospels are called Synoptic Gospels.
The explanation of their relationship is one of the
hardest problems of New-Testament science. Se
rious attempts to solve this problem were first
undertaken about the beginning of this century.
Numerous theories have been advanced, and some
one of them has always routed the others ; but it
would lead us too far to consider them at present. I
will only add, that formerly the inclination was to
wards regarding the Gospel of Mark as the latest,
and as an abstract from the other two ; but lately —
especially since Ewald's works on the question,

90 THE GOSPELS.
which have justly received manifold acknowledg
ment — the views more and more unite in the con
trary direction, towards holding the Gospel of Mark
as the earliest, and as the basis of the other two.
Nevertheless, this whole problem should not be
thought to be at all certainly solved. There are
still not a few scholars of the most opposite tenden
cies who hold and defend other views.
This whole inquiry is not so important for us as
the question, When did our Gospels originate ? The
judgment concerning their trustworthiness depends
mainly upon this. The nearer they are to the
events which they relate, the more surely may we
expect trustworthy evidence in them ; on the other
hand, the farther their origin is removed from the
apostolic age, the more possible, at least, is it that
legend had crept into them. The Tubingen school
therefore sought to bring down the Gospels as far
as possible into the second century. According to
Baur, the Gospel of Matthew was first written be
tween 130 and 134 ; that of Luke, not before 150.
But we certainly find the Synoptic Gospels in the
common and acknowledged use of- the Church as
early as 140-150. As early as the middle of the
second century, a heathen enemy of Christianity,
Celsus, quotes from them his information about the
person and the work of Jesus, as from books that
were generally known. We find them still earlier,
130-140, among the Gnostic heretics. One of these,
Marcion, worked over the Gospel of Luke for his
own purposes, — an irrefragable proof that this Gos-

THE GOSPELS. 91
pel was then widely known. Therefore it cannot
be doubted that the Gospels must have originated
some time before this. Accordingly, a backward
movement began in the Tubingen school itself.
Baur's disciples set the Gospels farther and farther
back. Zeller thinks Luke was written about 130 ;
Volckmar puts Mark about 80, Luke 100, Matthew
110 ; Kostlin puts the original draught of Mat
thew between 70 and 80, its elaboration in its pres
ent form 90-100, Luke a little earlier, Mark a
little later ; Hilgenfeld puts Matthew and Mark
about the end of the first century, Luke in the
beginning of the second century. This brings
us substantially into the first century; and now
Ewald, and the latest investigators of the subject,
Weiss and Holtzmann, go still farther back. Ac
cording to Ewald, Mark wrote after Peter's death ;
the Gospel of Matthew originated before the de
struction of Jerusalem, consequently before 70 ; the
Gospel of Luke five or ten years after the end
of the Jewish war, consequently 75-80. Similar
results are reached by Holtzmann, who also places
the older authorities, upon which our Synoptic Gos
pels are originally based, with these Gospels within
the years 60-80.
Sober scientific study, whose conclusions are not
foregone, can reach no other results. The exter
nal evidence alone, apart from all other, does not
permit it. This' is as good and as sure as we could
desire from an age in which little was written, and
from which less has come down to us. All that we

92 THE GOSPELS.
have from the period between the end of the apos
tolic age and the middle of the second century, could
be comprised in a medium-sized volume ; and yet
there is no lack of evidence for all three Gospels.
To begin with Mark. The oldest tradition testifies
unanimously that he composed his Gospel under the
special influence of Peter, whose interpreter he was.
Papias,* for instance, a man whose life extends into
the apostolic age, cites a still more ancient witness,
— John the Presbyter, — and says, " Mark, the in
terpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately what he
remembered of Peter's discourses about the words
and works of the Lord." Yes: Christian antiquity
goes in many ways so far back, as to treat Mark's
Gospel as a Gospel of Peter. According to external
and internal arguments, it cannot have been written
later than about 65.
The Gospel of Luke has its surest evidence in
the Acts. There can be no doubt, that these two
writings, making as they do one whole, are the work
of a single author. The author of the Book of Acts
appears in it as a travelling companion of Paul;
and, although he nowhere mentions his own name,
antiquity testifies unanimously that he was Luke.
This agrees with the thoroughly Pauline tone of the
Gospel of Luke. According to many signs, this
Gospel was first written after the destruction of
Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew is in a somewhat different
condition. According to the tradition of the Church,f
* See Note I. p. 152. f See Note II. p. 153.

THE GOSPELS. 93
Matthew wrote originally not Greek, but Hebrew, — -
or, to speak more accurately, Aramaic, the popular
language of his time. This Aramaic composition of
the apostle most probably did not comprise all of our
present first Gospel, but was a collection of the Lord's
discourses, accompanied perhaps with bits of narra
tive. This collection was then enlarged to a complete
Gospel, and in this form was translated into Greek.
As for the time of its composition, the collection
of discourses must have been made very early ; for
the Gospel itself in its Greek translation, according
to external and internal evidence, must be placed
within the sixty years preceding the destruction of
Jerusalem. We find, on summing up the results, that our
Synoptic Gospels were written in the apostolic age,
— to mark the time only very generally, between
60 and 75 ; and although no one of them, as we
possess it, is the work of an immediate disciple of
Jesus, they still point indirectly to such persons, —
the first to Matthew, the second to Peter.
Let us notice what must follow from these consid
erations. When any one asserts that our Gospels contain,
not history, but legend, or at least history trans
formed and embellished by legend, he must be able
to prove the possibility of such a comprehensive
legendary formation. Every legendary growth re
quires, to speak of nothing else, a certain time.
When the true idea of an historical personage is
obscured by distance of time, and there remains

94 THE GOSPELS.
only a general impression of its character, then the
growth of legend first becomes possible to any great
degree. Where is there time for such a thing in
this case? There are only about thirty years be
tween the Lord's death and the composition of Mark.
A large number of persons who had seen the Lord,
who had themselves gone through this history, were
still living. Paul was able to appeal to hundreds of
eye-witnesses of the resurrection. Is there room
here for much of a legendary growth ? Remember
what I have previously remarked, that we are stand
ing in a perfectly historical age. The character of
the age was far more that of unbelief than of naive
belief. Such an age can intentionally create reli
gious fiction, or all kinds of fantastic figures of
superstition, which at that time, as always, went
side by side with unbelief; but it is not inclined to
a naive formation of legend. And what attitude did
the apostles take towards this legendary growth,
which not only began in their day, but must have
then displayed its greatest activity? It is incon
ceivable that the apostles, with their moral purity
and thoroughly sincere characters, took part in this ;
or that they repeated to the Church as history these
legends which had grown up without their aid. If
we cannot suppose this, how can we fancy that these
legends, without the aid of the apostles, or in spite
of their direct contradiction, found acceptance and
belief in the churches, which were wont in every
particular to look up to the apostles as the witnesses
appointed by the Lord ?

THE GOSPELS. 95
Finally, I pray you to notice another point. If
the disciples, the eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses,
received only a moderately deep impression of Jesus;
if they preserved only a moderately correct idea of
him as he lived among them, — it cannot he thought
possible, that, during the thirty or forty years which
intervened between the death of the Lord and the
composition of our Gospels, an unhistorical and
legendary idea of Christ should have intruded itself
into the place of the genuine historical idea. Who
ever asserts that the gospel picture of Christ is not
truly historical, must make up his mind to say that
the disciples got no true idea of the Lord from their
intercourse with him, so that a false conception
could easily foist itself upon them; or, in other
words, he must make up his mind to say, that the
person, the words, and the works of Jesus made no
real impression. Then let him explain how it comes
to pass, that the whole great movement of the world
represents itself as proceeding from the person of
Jesus. If any thing is settled, this is settled : that
Jesus made an impression upon his contemporaries,
of a depth, a liveliness, and a permanency, such as
no one else ever made. Hence, during the thirty
or forty years after his death, they who had been his
companions must have had a lively, genuine, and
true idea of him ; and if we suppose that only the
essential contents of the Synoptic Gospels originated
during this period, — which according to the present
position of science may be considered certain, — the
picture of Christ which they give us must be this
genuine, historical idea.

96 THE GOSPELS.
In the fourth Gospel, we have evidence which is
still more direct. If this was written by John, it
gives us an account of the life of Jesus, than which
there could be no better, — the account of one of his
own disciples, of his most intimate disciple. The
importance of the question of the genuineness of
John's Gospel has been recognized on all sides ; and
the discussions concerning it have been so active
during late years, that their literature alone would
make a small library. I am therefore the more sen
sible of the difficulty of giving you even an approx
imately adequate representation of it. In order to
do this, it will be necessary to go into many details,
although the limits of a discourse oblige a restriction
to the main points.
The first question concerns the external evidence
for the fourth Gospel. Who knows it, and vouches
for its Johannine origin ?
Let us start from that point of time when it was
generally acknowledged and used in the Church as
an apostolic writing. This was about 180. At this
time, Irenaeus used it in Lyons ; and the Church in
that place cited it in a letter which it wrote on the
occasion of the great persecution of 177. It is also
found in use in the Roman Church, as an old scrip
tural index of this Church proves ; and by the Alex
andrian and Syrian Churches, as is proved by the
writings of Clement of Alexandria for the one, and
by the Syrian translation of the Bible for the other.
There is no contradiction of this : only a small
sect, the so-called Alogi, rejected it, solely because

THE GOSPELS. 97
it did not agree with them. If there had been at
that time the slightest recollection of a later ori
gin of this Gospel, they would certainly have taken
advantage of it ; but there ¦ is no trace of such a
thing. This Gospel belongs to the undisputed, gen
erally acknowledged Scriptures.
The testimony of Irenaeus, just mentioned, is es
pecially important. He had formerly lived in Asia
Minor, and was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who
had personally known John. Irenseus's testimony,*
therefore, points directly into the circle in which
the Gospel originated. Can we suppose that Iren
aeus would have accepted a Gospel as coming from
John, if he had never heard of such a Gospel from
the men who lived with John ?
We can go still farther back. The next witness
we meet is Justin Martyr, a number of whose writ
ings, from the years 138-160, are in our posses
sion. Justin did not yet have the separate selection
of our four Gospels, but used also several which
were afterwards not acknowledged by the Church.
He calls them altogether, " Memoirs of the Apos
tles." Among them was certainly the Gospel of
John. He quotes several passages which are to be
found in this alone ; and, what is more important,
there are many Johannine expressions in his own
style, and his whole method of teaching can be un
derstood only by supposing him to have been familiar
with John's Gospel.
This evidence has been further corroborated by a
* See Note III. p. 154.

98 THE GOSPELS.
remarkable discovery of late years. It was asked
by our opponents, If Justin possessed the fourth
Gospel, why did he not use it oftener ? Its rare
use was said to make it doubtful that it had been
used at all. Then there appeared a precisely sim
ilar case in another writing of the period, — the
so-called " Clementine Homilies," a Christian ro
mance which originated in heretical circles probably
about 150-160, but which we did not possess entire,
for the end of the manuscript was wanting. A com
plete manuscript was found in a Roman library ; and,
lo ! one of the last chapters contained, word for
word, the whole story of the man that was born
blind, from John ix. Thereby we not only gain
indubitable evidence for the date about 160, but
also the testimony of Justin is corroborated. Volck-
mar, to be sure, reverses the matter, and asserts
that the author of the fourth Gospel made use of
Justin, — a plainly desperate shift. Hilgenfeld, on
the contrary, went back a step. Baur still thought
the Gospel originated about 150, but Hilgenfeld put
it back into the years 120-140.
Let us now go farther back, and explore the
period before 150. This also has been illuminated by
a new discovery.* A few years ago, in Paris, a man
uscript was found, before unnoticed, which on closer
examination proved to be a writing of the cele
brated ancient bishop, Hippolytus, "Against all
Heresies." This contains accurate accounts of
many Gnostic sects of the time, and, what is espe-
* See Note IV. p. 154.

THE GOSPELS. 99
cially important, many extracts from their lost writ
ings. Here we learn that the leaders of the Gnostic
party, Basilides and Valentine, used the Gospel of
John as early as 130-140. When we consider how
slowly books spread in those days, we may certainly
say, that if this Gospel was used by the Gnostics as
early as 130-140, — they merely appropriating what
they found already acknowledged by the Church,
— then it must have originated at the latest about
110-120. To this period Schenkel goes back. Whoever is
obliged to date the writing of the fourth Gospel so
early as this, is utterly unable to assume that it
is entirely unauthentic ; and Schenkel consequently
does not assume that. When we remember, that,
according to all witnesses, John lived until the
beginning of the second century, we could perhaps
understand how a Gospel could have been fathered
upon him about 140-150 ; but that this happened
about ten years after his death, and that such a
Gospel should have been accepted without hesita
tion as genuine, — this cannot be understood.
But we have witnesses who reach still farther
back. Their testimony is indirect, but not the less
important on that account. Papias and Polycarp
are acquainted with the First Epistle of John.
Polycarp quotes a passage from it. The author of
the First Epistle is certainly the author of the
Gospel. Thus we have the testimony, though in
direct, of a man who had associated with John.
Many ways of escape from this decisive testimony

100 THE GOSPELS.
have been tried, but all the trials are in vain. It
has been denied, that the Gospel and the Epistle
were by the same author. Baur declares the
Epistle to be a weak imitation of the Gospel.
Hilgenfeld reverses their relation, and puts the
Epistle first. In my opinion, whoever once reads,
without prejudice, the Epistle and the Gospel, will
no longer deny that one man must have written
both. It has been said that the occurrence of single
sentences does not prove that the whole Epistle
was yet in existence. This means that there is
nothing to say. It has been denied that the Epis
tle of Polycarp himself is genuine. This is mere
violence. For the Epistle of Polycarp, we have the
certain testimony of Irenaeus, his disciple. Here
the various evidence concentrates. Irenaeus, who
personally knew Polycarp, testifies that he wrote
the Epistle which bears his name. In this Epistle,
Polycarp, who personally knew John, quotes his
first Epistle. If the Epistle is Johannine, so must
the Gospel be. I do not see how this evidence can
be broken.
The result of our investigation must be the
acknowledgment, that there is no want of external
evidence for the Gospel ; that it is as well authenti
cated as any other writing of the New Testament.*
The opponents of its genuineness consequently
lay more stress upon internal evidence. Formerly
it was thought that no other Gospel bore so plainly
the stamp of apostolic origin as this " tender, chief
* See Note V. p. 154.

THE GOSPELS. 101
Gospel ; " but now it is said that the contents of
this Gospel clearly betray the fact, that it could not
have been written by John.
To begin with the most external part. A list of
geographical and historical errors are given, as
signs that the author was not accurately acquainted
with the times and places in which the life of Jesus
was spent, and therefore could not have been John.
Schenkel even denies that he was an inhabitant of
Palestine, and a Jew. Schenkel and Strauss cite
four or five such errors. Even these opponents can
find no more. Then the case must stand very well
for John. Consider a moment. Some one, who is
neither an inhabitant of Palestine nor a Jew, writes
in the second century a life of Jesus, with accurate
references to times and places, with the most de
tailed descriptions (in this very thing the fourth
Gospel abounds more than any other) ; and in it
the sharpest critical eyes can find no more than four
or five errors in geography and history. This would
be very wonderful ; and therefore I think it may
be said in general, before going farther, that the
case looks very well for John. But even the sup
posed errors can by no means be certainly proved
to be such. Let us examine those which are held to
be the surest. According to chap. i. 28, John bap
tized in Bethany, on the farther side of the Jordan.
The text is uncertain: many read, as our Ger
man Bible has it, Bethabara. Suppose we take
Bethany as the correct reading. Then, it is said,
the author of the fourth Gospel did not know where

102 THE GOSPELS.
Bethany lay : he thought it was on the farther side
of the Jordan. Indeed! But we see elsewhere
that he knew very well that Bethany lay in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem. Did he, therefore,
think that Jerusalem was also on the farther side
of the Jordan ? That is utterly inconceivable.
Baur therefore supposes that he invented a second
Bethany. This is improbable ; for on the ground
that the author was not John, and wished to pass
for John, he would have kept as strictly as possible
within the real localities. The simplest solution is
to suppose that there were two places of the same
name. Origen says there is no Bethany on the
farther side of the Jordan ; but such great changes
had taken place in the land of the Jews during the
two hundred and fifty years before Origen, that one
of these places might have entirely disappeared : for
nothing necessitates the theory of a great town, or
even a village ; and we know that John the Baptist
rather avoided the larger places. Another error is
said to be found in the conversation of Jesus with
the Samaritan woman. The place in whose vicinity
Jacob's well lay is called Sychar by the evangelist,
whereas its name is given elsewhere as Sychem.
Of this he is again supposed to be ignorant. But he
describes the place exactly in other respects. The
well lay near the town, according to his account ;
but Sychem, the present Nablus, is more than half
a league distant from the well. Consequently this
cannot be the place indicated ; and there is not the
least improbability in supposing that there was an
other place in the vicinity named Sychar.

THE GOSPELS. 103
It is about the same with the historical errors. It
is said that the evangelist represents the relations
between the Jews and Samaritans as far too hostile.
The Jewish tradition in the Talmud describes it as
still more hostile. The evangelist is said to have
thought that the Jewish high-priest was chosen
every year, like the Roman consuls ; for he says of
Caiaphas, "being high-priest that year." That
would certainly be a great error, — so great that it
can hardly, or rather cannot, be understood of one so
well versed in the Old Testament as the evangelist
evidently is, and who makes such frequent use of it.
The phrase " being high-priest that year," is ex
plained by the consideration, that John uses it
when he speaks of the malevolent prophecy of Caia
phas. He thereby calls attention to the fact, that
Caiaphas was high-priest that very year, — the
memorable year of the Lord's death.
All of these pretended errors are found only be
cause they are sought for.
No more valid is the objection, that the character
of the Gospel does not agree with the character of
John as we meet him elsewhere. It is said that the
" son .of thunder," as he is called in the Gospel of
Mark, could not have written this Epistle and this
Gospel, in which love alone is preached ; and that the
large-heartedness, which appears in the fourth Gos
pel free from all Judaism, is inconsistent with the
narrow-minded Judaism of John. It is true that
John was a son of thunder ; but cannot a son of
thunder become, by the power of grace, a disciple

104 THE GOSPELS.
and preacher of love ? At all events, the Church
of Asia Minor has preserved such a recollection of
John, which is shown by the familiar story, that, in
his very old age, John used to say to the people in
the Church nothing but the constantly repeated
counsel, " Little children, love one another." The
idea that he was a bigoted Judaist is a mere fancy
of the Tubingen school, which also pretends that at
Ephesus he destroyed the fruits of Paul's previous
ministry. That is another thing which the mem
ory of the Church of Asia Minor has not preserved.
This Church regards the two Apostles Paul and John
as its pillars, and has no misgivings of any opposi
tion between them.
We now come to the chief of all the objections
that are urged against the genuineness of the Gos
pel, that upon which our opponents lay the most
stress, and which, if it were valid, would alone suf
fice to prove that the Gospel was not genuine. It is
said that the fourth Gospel gives an entirely differ
ent representation of Christ from the first three ; and
so surely as theirs is true, this is false. One can
but wish that they who argue in this way would
first admit the picture of Christ given in the first
three Gospels to be truly historical : I am sure that
they would then come soon enough to the acknowl
edgment of the fourth Gospel.
A simple comparison only is needed to see, that
the fourth Gospel, while coinciding in many parts
with- the first three, contains also much that is
peculiar to itself; recounts miracles, repeats dis-

THE GOSPELS. 105
courses of the Lord, which are not in the other
Gospels. This, as it seems to me, is one of the
strongest proofs of its genuineness ; for an eye-wit
ness speaks here who can adduce a deal of new
material from his own recollection. Let us reverse
the question, and ask, If it is not an eye-witness
who speaks, but some unknown person of the second
century, whence did this person get the abundant
material ? From oral tradition ? This was very
scanty as early as the beginning of the second cen
tury. From the growth of legend ? Where in the
second century is there the slightest trace that le
gend formed such stories as the marriage at Cana
and the raising of Lazarus ? There remains nothing
else to be said, except — he invented it all. Baur
did not hesitate to assert this, and Strauss agreed
with him. They suppose that the author of the
fourth Gospel spun these peculiar tales of his out
of the Synoptic Gospels, and perhaps some other
sources of information. For instance, he read in
the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus, that
the rich rnan begged that Lazarus should be sent
back to the earth, to preach repentance to his breth
ren. This suggested to him the idea of making
Lazarus actually come back out of the grave. With
this he united Luke's story of the two sisters of
Bethany, made Lazarus the brother of Martha and
Mary, and thus formed the narrative of the raising
of Lazarus. That is indeed fine-spun. I do not
know which we should most wonder at, — the fer
tility of the pseudo-John, who makes such a nar-

106 THE GOSPELS.
rative out of single bits of information; or the
penetration of the critics, who now, after eighteen
hundred years, can find the traces of the origin of
this narrative ; or, finally, the credulity of those who
believe this to be possible.
The author who had the ability to write such a
Gospel as a fictitious narrative must certainly have
been a very remarkable man. Who is there in
the whole second century that even remotely ap
proximates to him ; that can be mentioned in the
same breath with him ? Search the second cen
tury through and through, and how far, how in
finitely far, does every thing stand below this ! The
writings of Justin, or whatever else that is excellent
in our inheritance from this period; the beautiful
letter to Diognetus, a pearl of the ancient Christian
literature, — there is still a deep gulf which separates
them all from the fourth Gospel. Indeed, it may be
said that all the difficulties which have been placed,
with care and ingenuity, in the way of the genuine
ness, are as nothing in comparison with the diffi
culties over which one stumbles who denies the
genuineness, and is obliged to bring down the
fourth Gospel into the second century, and assign
a place for it there ; for it must have originated at
some time. In this connection it will suffice to
quote the opinion of a man who will be admitted to
be impartial, — Professor Ritschl, of Gb'ttingen. He
declares that he holds this Gospel to be genuine
with the rest, for this reason, " because the denial
of its genuineness involves much greater difficul
ties than the acknowledgment of it."

THE GOSPELS. 107
Add to this the direct impression which the Gos
pel makes upon every impartial reader. It is the
impression of genuine history. The clearness of
the narrative ; the accurate references to time and
place, — often in apparently insignificant matters,
and evidently made unintentionally from the live
liness of the writer's own recollection ; the dis
tinct delineation of the different characters, — for
instance, of Mary and Martha, of the individual dis
ciples, of Pilate and others, who, though sketched
with but few lines, appear so natural and life-like,
— all this constantly impresses upon men of the
most diverse tendencies, upon such men as Hase
and Ewald, who are any thing but uncritical, the
conviction, — This is history, and not fiction. Even
Schenkel cannot avoid this impression, and sees
that he is obliged to refer at least a part of the con
tents of the Gospel to John. But every division,
in whatever way attempted, is arbitrary. The whole
Gospel bears one stamp, and its close-locked unity
confounds every attempt at division.*
We may now return to the question which we
passed over, — the question concerning the relation
of the fourth Gospel to the first three. There is
certainly a difference between them, — a difference
not only in the choice of material, but also in the
mode of representation ; in the coloring, as it were,
of the picture. Difference, however, is not neces
sarily contradiction. If the life of any remarkable
man is full enough to be considered and represented
* See Note VI. p. 157.

108 THE GOSPELS.
by different biographers from different points of
view, how much more the infinitely abundant ful
ness of the life of Jesus !
The more closely we look, the more points of co
incidence we find between the Synoptic writers and
John. Let us look at the incidents. John relates
little concerning the residence of Jesus in Galilee ;
but he knows that Jesus stayed there repeatedly,
for considerable lengths of time. The Synoptic
writers tell nothing about an earlier ministry of
Jesus in Judaea and Jerusalem ; but they know
of his saying, " 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem ! . . . how
often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens ! " — a saying
which seems to imply a more frequent residence in
Jerusalem. The Synoptic writers do not narrate the
raising of Lazarus ; but Luke knows of the two sis
ters of Bethany, and their character, sketched as it
is with but few lines, agrees surprisingly with what
John tells of their conduct at the death of their -
brother. Let us look at the discourses. How
many sayings in John call to mind the popular
laconic speech of Jesus in the Synoptics ! Consider
also the saying repeated by Matthew (Matt. xi. 27 ;
compare Luke x. 22), " All things are delivered
unto me of my Father ; and no man knoweth the
Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any man
the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the
Son will reveal him." Has not this saying, if we
may so express it, an entirely Johannine coloring ?
If it were in John, instead of being in the Synoptics,

THE GOSPELS. 109
this very saying would doubtless be used to prove to
us that Jesus there speaks differently from here.
We can take another step. The Synoptics and
John not only coincide in many ways, — they supple
ment each other. The fourth Gospel presupposes
the three first ; presupposes at least the information
which they contain. It may be urged that whatever
is wanting in John was unknown to him. He does
not recount the institution of the Lord's Supper:
was he ignorant of that ? It is true the Synoptics
tell mostly about the Lord's ministry in Galilee :
John tells about that in Judaea and Jerusalem. But
do these accounts mutually exclude each other?
The catastrophe of Jesus' life cannot be understood,
on the one side, without a longer ministry in Gali
lee : on the other side, without a more frequent resi
dence in Jerusalem. It is true the discourses of
the Lord in the Synoptics have a different character
from those in John. There they are popular, clear
and transparent, parabolic, full of telling points:
here they are profound, contemplative, mystical and
hard to understand ; often spoken as if only for a
narrow circle. But does one exclude the other?
Cannot he who spoke as in the Synoptics, also speak
as in John ? Was the Lord so one-sided or so poor,
that, when circumstances and occasions required it,
he could not command a different mode of speech ?
The Lord's ministry is plainly incomprehensible
without both kinds of speech. In John, as well as
in the Synoptics, we find the Lord surrounded by
great multitudes of people; and nothing is more

110 THE GOSPELS.
certain than that he made a deep impression upon
the mass of the people. How did he do this ? How
could he have won those multitudes and bound them
to himself if he had only spoken as in John ; and
not also popularly, as in the Synoptics ? On the
other hand, whence comes all the fulness of knowl
edge that lived in the apostolic Church ; whence
comes the depth of the idea of the divine in Jesus,
— if the Lord did not also speak as in John ? It
is true — not to pass by another difference, which is
so much misused — that the Synoptics set forth
rather the human element in Jesus : they tell us
of the Son of man, the son of David. John, on the
other hand, sets forth the divine element more pro
minently, and shows us the Son of God, the Only-
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. But
it is not true that the divine element is wanting in
the Synoptics, or the human element in John. The
Son of man in the first three Gospels is also the Son
of God, to whom all power is given in heaven and
in earth ; and the Son of God in John is also a real
man, who goes to the wedding, who makes friendly
visits at the house in Bethany, who weeps at the
grave of Lazarus : indeed, in hardly any other Gos
pel do we feel the human heart of Jesus beat as we
do in John.
In all these ways the Synoptics and John supple
ment each other ; and we say with confidence still
more, they require one another. If we had only the
first three Gospels, or only the fourth Gospel, in
either case we should get only an imperfect idea of

THE GOSPELS. Ill
the Lord. Consider for a moment : if we possessed
only the Gospel of John, we should have no clear
view of the life of Jesus. We should have accounts
of special, great deeds ; but no picture of his daily
life and ministry among the people. We should
have a sublime portrait of our Lord ; but we cannot
conceal from our minds the fact, that this portrait
lacks distinct outlines. It would not want depth,
but it would want clearness. Consider the opposite
case : if we possessed only the first three Gospels,
we should unquestionably have a very natural, life
like picture of the Lord. But this would be wanting
not only in such external things as several references
to time and place ; it would be wanting not only in
many of the greatest events of his life : it would also
want, as Schenkel correctly observes, the unfathom
able depth and inaccessible height.* We should
have to surmise, instead of beholding, the greatness
of Jesus.
Permit me to add to these considerations a word
concerning the general relation of the four Gospels
to one another. Part of the tactics of our opponents
consists in trying to find as many contradictions as
they can between the Gospels, and thereby to prove
their untrustworthiness. They proceed as if the
Gospels were formal legal records concerning the
life of Jesus, they subject them to a sort of criminal
trial ; and every contradiction which they can bring
out by cross-examination is made to exhibit the
untrustworthiness of one, and consequently, at last,
* Schenkel's Char., S. 25 (Furness's Trans., vol. i. p. 46).

112 THE GOSPELS.
of all four. But they proceed from a totally false
idea. I will try to illustrate my meaning. There is a
great difference between a photograph and a paint
ing. A photograph is merely a copy of reality made
by a lifeless machine, and therefore in a Certain
sense it is itself dead. A painting is a living repro
duction : the picture has come from the artist ; he
took it to himself, he worked it out in his own mind,
and gave us what he saw. Four photographs of a
person must be exactly alike, to the most minute
details : if one differs from the others, it is therefore
false. But fancy four portraits of a person painted
by four different artists : we shall then have four
pictures, of which no one agrees with another in
every line ; of which one brings out one side, an
other another side, of the person ; and still all four
are genuine and true likenesses of the same person.
Yes : all four together are necessary to make the
only complete picture.
I am aware that this illustration is not in all
respects perfect : it must suffer the common failing
of all illustrations ; but I think it will make my
meaning clear. The Gospels are not four photo
graphs : if they were, then they who think they can
prove their unauthenticity and unhistorical charac
ter from every varying line, would be right. They
are rather four living reproductions of the image of
Jesus. No lifeless machine has given us a copy-
of Jesus ; but living men have told us what they
heard and saw of the Word of life. These men dif-

THE GOSPELS. 113
fer in their individual characters; and though the
Holy Spirit, who influenced them, purified their indi
viduality, he by no means suppressed it. Matthew
remained Matthew ; and John, John. The image of
the Lord was reflected in each one according to his
peculiar character ; and since no man is able to take
and give the whole fulness of the life that is in Jesus
Christ, the Providence that rules the Church gave
her, not one Gospel, but four; or, to speak more
correctly with the ancient Church, One Gospel in a
fourfold form.
The Church needed for her life a genuine picture
of her Lord. Without it she could have neither
arisen nor stood fast. To deny that she had and
still has such a picture is simply to deny Christian
ity. In the apostolic times she possessed such a
picture, in the general oral tradition, and in the
chosen, personal witnesses who had gone in and out
with Jesus. If the Church was to stand, care had
to be taken to preserve what she possessed in the
apostolic times ; and this possession we have in our
four Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels there is the
true account of the oral tradition : in them we have
what was then told among the people, what the
evangelists related on their missionary journeys and
on the occasions of religious service in the Church.
It is in its simplest form in Mark ; in Matthew, the
Lord's discourses are especially prominent; while
Luke makes the transition from evangelist to histo
rian. His task is to compile, before the oral tradi
tion dies out with the lapse of time. Since the

114 THE GOSPELS.
apostolic Church consisted of two great parts, com
prising Christians from the Jews, and Christians
from the Gentiles ; since one who had been a Jew
and one who had been a Gentile naturally took differ
ent views of Christ, — this difference appears in our
Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew represents Christ
as he appeared to a Jewish Christian, who saw, above
all else in Jesus, the fulfilment of the prophecies
of the Old Testament ; the Gospel of Luke, on the
other side, represents him, according to the reflec
tion of his image in the mind of a Gentile Christian,
as the second Adam : so that we may have the like
ness of him who should be both the light of the
Gentiles and the glory of Israel. To all this is
added the fourth Gospel, not a record of tradition,
but the work of one man, — of that one of the dis
ciples who leaned on the Lord's breast, who had
looked deepest into the deeps of his nature, and
therefore was able to present his image as the image
of the only-begotten Son of God, whose glory he had
beheld. The possession of the One Gospel in its fourfold
form imposes upon the Church the task of knowing
the four portraits, which are but one, as one, in
order to gain the only full and complete idea of her
Lord. Shall I say that this task has been fulfilled ?
Both no and yes. No : it is a task, in the fulfilment
of which the Church has to labor, not in her science
alone, but in her whole life, on and on, to know
ever more fully the riches of the grace and life that
is in Christ Jesus. This task is not to be accom-

THE GOSPELS. 115
plished by counting the features of his portrait ; by
a mere book-account of his sayings and doings. This
would not be sufficient for the likeness of an ordi
nary man, least of all for the image of Christ. It is
rather a moral task ; for they alone can know him
who open their hearts to him, and receive his life
in themselves : and only in the measure in which
his life pours itself into his Church, and takes defi
nite form within her, — only in that measure is the
task to be fulfilled.
And yet, Yes. This task is fulfilled daily by
every simple Christian soul, who, without learning
and science, reads the Gospels in faith, and sees in
all four the same original likeness of Him who is its
life, and has taken form within it ; the genuine his
torical picture of Him who dwelt and worked among
us, — an historical person, and yet exalted above all
time ; the same yesterday and to-day and for ever.

FOURTH DISCOURSE.
THE MIRACLES.

TN our discussion, a week ago, concerning the
-*¦ trustworthiness of the Gospels, the question of
miracles was excepted. We reached the conclusion,
that the writings of the New Testament — that is to
say, the Gospels — contain trustworthy information
about the life of Jesus, by assuming for the moment
that the occurrence of miraculous stories in them
does not show them to be untrustworthy. We
made provisionally the presumption that there were
miracles. To-day we have to discuss whether this
presumption was correct, — the question of miracles.
We thus approach the burning question of the
present, as I have already characterized it at the
beginning of my first discourse. Miracles are to so
many the great hindrance, the stumbling-block over
which they cannot pass ! If there were only no
miracles, they say, we would accept the rest of the
contents of the Bible ; but to believe in miracles is
no longer possible in the present position of the sci
ences, — that is to say, the natural sciences. They

THE MIRACLES. 117
could more easily give up all faith, than bring them
selves to believe in miracles.
This difficulty cannot be avoided. Miracles can
not be got out of the Bible, either by natural ex
planation or by figurative interpretation. Nor is it
of any use to abate something here and there, to set
aside this or that miracle entirely, or to conceive its
miraculous quality to be less miraculous ; for the
least miracle is as incomprehensible as the greatest.
In vain, also, is the attempt to disjoin the miracles ;
to separate them as dSbris, and to hold fast only
what remains : for all Christianity rests fundamen
tally upon the miracle of the appearance of Christ ;
and whoever rejects miracles must also reject the
fundamental fact of Christianity, the chief article of
the Christian faith. Nor is this all : he must reject
all revelation, for revelation is miracle. And if he
then, perhaps, comforts himself with the thought
that natural religion still remains, this consolation
also rests fundamentally upon illusion. To speak
plainly, whoever denies miracles has no God. He
may always, if only from an instinctive fear of athe
ism, hold fast that there is a God : but it is a dead
word, a name ; for this God stands in no living rela
tion to the world. Man has nothing to hope or to
fear from him. Prayer is no longer possible ; for
all praying depends upon the conviction, that God
grants what we ask. If God performs no miracles,
and can perform none ; or, in other words, if he no
longer acts in this world, if he is shut out of it, if
the order of nature does not admit him, if every

118 THE MIRACLES.
thing that takes place is nothing but an unbroken
chain of final causes and effects, — then prayer
depends upon an illusion ; and the illusion must
sooner or later become evident to man, shrink as
he may from this conclusion of his reason.
I would therefore ask you not to shrink from a
clear perception of the whole scope and bearing of
this question from the beginning to the end. Strauss
is perfectly right in treating the question of miracles
as the question of the existence . of Christianity.
He who does away with miracles not only banishes,
as Strauss says, the priests from the Church: he
banishes the Church itself, and Christianity, and
the living God besides. I do not say this to instil
fear into your minds, to hold you fast to the so-
called illusion of miracles, through fear of the
overthrow of all that we have been used to from
childhood. Of what use would that be ? It would .
have no meaning and no blessing for our life. If
it is an illusion, then get rid of it, without regard
to what falls with it. That would only be doing
good, though it should break many an anxious heart.
I say it only that you may see what is at stake ; and
to warn you of the fatal and essentially false am
biguity of those who think that they can sacrifice
miracles to the pretended demands of science, with
out also sacrificing Christianity itself.
Miracles, — what is a miracle ? Let us first de
termine the idea of a miracle ; for all that we call
miraculous is not miraculous in the sense in which
we here speak of miracles. We are accustomed ta

THE MIRACLES. 119
use the word " miracle " in a very wide sense ; and
it is therefore necessary to make abstractions from
all sides, that we may come to the miracle in the
proper sense.
When the seed springs up in the field, and the
plant grows from the grain, we call it a miracle.
We speak of the miracles of God in nature. It is
not to our purpose to inquire how correct this mode
. of speech is : it is clear that these are not miracles
in the proper sense, for they are the effects of mere
natural causes. The germination and growth of the
seed proceeds from natural forces, according to the
inherent laws of nature, without the intervention
of a supernatural cause. It makes no difference
whether the forces and. laws of nature that rule
there are known or still unknown to us. When
things take place in nature, when effects are pro
duced which cannot be explained by the forces and
laws that are known to us, we may say that it is a
miracle to us ; but it is not a miracle in itself. So
soon as farther investigation brings those forces
and laws within our knowledge, the miracle ceases
to be a miracle. In such cases, therefore, we do
not have to deal, properly speaking, with miracles.
It is different with events which are also only
the result of natural causes, but in which we must
recognize the hand of God, the special guidance and
providence of God, because these natural causes ex
actly coincide to produce just this result and no
other. In such cases we can really speak of mir
acles. Let me give as an example a story from the

120 THE MIRACLES.
life of A. H. Franke, the founder of the Orphan
Asylum at Halle. One day, during the building of
the Asylum, his accountant came to him and asked
for a certain sum of money which had to be paid at
once. Eranke's purse was empty. He went into
his chamber and prayed to God ; and lo ! just as
he came out of his chamber, a letter was brought
to him containing the required sum. Here we
have mere final causes ; but in their coincidence
with the result, that the money was brought at the
very instant the prayer was heard, there is a dis
pensation of the most special divine providence, an
intervention by God, who does not provide the
money in a supernatural way, but directs every
thing so that the money is at hand the moment
Franke's prayer is granted. This is an intervention
of God, an actual miracle ; but still not a miracle
in the strictest sense.
A miracle in the strictest sense exists only when
things occur which have their effective cause, not in
the forces of earthly nature, but in a direct inter
vention of divine power, of God himself, when
God acts without the medium of created means.
For instance, when the Lord turns water into wine,
multiplies the loaves in the wilderness, raises a man
from the dead, — these are miracles in the strictest
and most correct sense of the term ; and it is with
these especially that we now have to deal.
It is necessary to make still another distinction
between the miracles of grace which God works in
a human heart, and the miracles of power which

THE MIRACLES. 121
take place in nature. Conversion, the regeneration
of a man, is also a miracle performed by God ; but
these miracles of grace, though rightly called by
Luther the head and chief of miracles, must, in
the first place at least, be left out of our considera
tion. We shall return to them afterwards ; but first
of all we have to deal, not with them, but with the
so-called miracles of power, or miracles of nature.
The question is, whether there are such miracles as
the instances already given, events which God him
self brings to pass without the concurrence of
created, mediate causes.
All the arguments brought against the occurrence
of miracles maybe reduced to two, — one histori
cal argument ; and one philosophical argument,
which is based upon* the reason. It is said, first,
the actual occurrence of miracles is not historically
demonstrable ; and, second, it is inconceivable, it
cannot be reconciled with reason. These arguments
mutually support each other ; and it is somewhat
embarrassing to find out how to take hold of the
subject. If we try to prove the miracles historically,
it is said, " All miraculous stories are thoroughly
untrustworthy, for miracles are inconceivable." If
we take the subject by the other end, and, seeking
its warrant in the idea, attempt to prove it by
reasoning, then it is said, " What does all that
avail ? Miracles may be conceivable for ever ; but
their actual occurrence is not established, is not
historically proved."
The subject must nevertheless be taken by one

122 THE MIRACLES.
end or the other. Let us begin with the historical
proof. This is the most correct way ; for, instead of
inventing all kinds of conjectures about possibility
and impossibility, it is unquestionably better to
reason about the facts. This is also the way pointed
out by our opponents ; for both Renan and Schenkel
declare that they do not deny the possibility of
miracles, but only their actual occurrence. " It is
not, therefore, in the name of this or that philos
ophy," says Renan, " but in the name of constant
experience, that we banish miracle from history.
We do not say, ' Miracle is impossible : ' we say,
' There has been hitherto no miracle proved.' " * Let
us look and see if there is not some instance in
which a miracle can be established by sure his
torical proof.
At the outset we must reject most decidedly the
demands which Renan makes for such a proof. He
says, " Let a thaumaturgist present himself to-mor
row with testimony sufficiently, important to merit
our attention ; let him announce that he is able, I
will suppose, to raise the dead : what would be
done ? A commission, composed of physiologists,
physicians, chemists, persons experienced in histori
cal criticism, would be appointed. This commission
would choose the corpse, make certain that death
was real, designate the hall in which the experiment
should be made, and regulate the whole system of
precautions necessary to leave no room for doubt.
If, under such conditions, the resurrection should
* Vie de Je'sus, p. xiii. (Wilbour's Trans., p. 44).

THE MIRACLES. 123
be performed, a probability almost equal to cer
tainty would be attained." * Then if the thauma
turgist should repeat the experiment several times
upon other dead bodies, under other circumstances,
before other persons, we might regard a miracle as
proved. — If these demands were just, we should be
undeniably and thoroughly beaten ; for such a com
mission of Parisian Academicians never existed in
Judaea, and the Lord's miracles also differed some
what from such experiments made to order before a
committee. But the demands are wholly unjust.
What would an historian say if he were required to
prove in this manner the facts of his history?
Strike out the whole history, no fact could be so
proved. We regard the miracles, in the first place,
as historical facts ; and no more can be demanded
of us than to prove them, as we prove every other
historical fact, by unsuspected witnesses, who can
and will tell the truth. Whoever demands more
than a simple historical proof, lets it be understood
that he occupies the standpoint designated by the
saying of Voltaire, that he would not believe a mir
acle even if it happened in the open marketplace,
before his eyes ; in other words, that, once for all,
he absolutely will not believe in miracles.
To prove the historical occurrence of miracles,
we cannot now appeal to the Gospels ; for we re
member that we demonstrated their trustworthiness
only upon the presumption that there were miracles,
and hence we cannot now prove miracles upon the
* Vie de Jesus, p. xiii. (Wilbour's Trans., p. 44).

124 THE MIRACLES.
presumption of their trustworthiness. This would
be arguing in a circle. Let us now start again from
the four uncontested Epistles of Paul, in which we
have an indisputable historical document.
By these Epistles it is shown to be a fact, that the
apostle Paul was convinced that miracles took place
at that time in the Church, for he expressly men
tions (1 Cor. xii. 9) among the gifts of the Holy
Spirit the gift of healing, — of miraculously heal
ing the sick. He was even sure that he himself
possessed the gift of miracles. He appeals to it
(2 Cor. xii. 12) as a sign of his apostleship. Paul
there says, " Truly, the signs of an apostle were
wrought among you in all patience, in signs and
wonders and mighty deeds." If you say that this
conviction of the apostle had no foundation in fact,
that he did not really work miracles, you have only
this alternative left : you must regard him either as
a fanatic, or as an impostor. Indeed, the first part
of the alternative is not left you : it could not hap
pen, without supposing a great moral defect. For,
mark you, I am speaking of miracles which Paul
claims to have performed himself. It is one thing
to accept without criticism strange miracles, and
another thing to solemnly appeal to one's own mira
cles. The latter, if the miracles have not really
been wrought, is a sign of a great lack of self-exam
ination : it is self-conceit of the worst kind. To
believe such a thing of Paul, is psychologically, his
torically, and morally impossible. I will not speak
of the circumstance, that the apostle was not sur-

THE MIRACLES. 125
rounded merely by devoted friends, who in their
enthusiasm thought that for him every thing was
possible. There in Corinth he had the bitterest en
emies ; and against these very persons he appealed
with perfect composure and the greatest certainty to
the miracles which he had performed in their midst.
It is easy to say that he deceived himself; but try for
a moment to comprehend the character of Paul, as it
lies before us so plainly in his Epistles. A man
otherwise of the keenest understanding, sober, true,
humble ; and in this one point weak, deluded, and,
what is worse, incredibly presuming and self-con
ceited. Is that conceivable ? Try also for a moment
to comprehend his entire work. If you believe that
delusion and lying accomplished such great, and
not only great, — such blessed things in the world
(we ourselves now, after eighteen hundred years,
are in the midst of this blessing which the work of
Paul extended over our part of the world), — if you
believe this, then all I have to say is, that I do not
envy you your view of the world, and will waste
no more words on the subject. But if you believe,
as you perhaps regard the world in other cases, that
delusion and lying have a brief triumph now and
then, but at last fall under the judgment of the truth,
then you must admit that, in this case, there can be
no delusion and lying, but truth, historical facts.
It is replied, perhaps, " The declarations of the
Apostle Paul are too indefinite : he only alludes to
miracles in general ; no single one is distinctly
named and told. Have you no thoroughly definite

126 THE MIRACLES.
miracle that can be historically proved ? " I answer
confidently, Yes: the greatest of all, — the mira
cle of the resurrection of Jesus. It is plain, that
if we should succeed in proving this to be histori
cally established, all demands would be satisfied. A
lively discussion has, therefore, sprung up of late
years about this fundamental fact of Christianity.
Every power is exerted by one side to destroy it, by
the other to defend it.
Let us here also start with a fact which is doubted
by neither side, and which cannot be reasonably
doubted, — I mean the fact that the disciples, the
earliest Christians, believed, and believed with the
fullest conviction, that Jesus, the Jesus who had
died, rose again bodily from the dead. The whole
Church rests upon this belief: this belief is the
substance of her preaching; it appears with most
complete certainty in all the documents of the time.
This indeed does not prove that the fact of the res
urrection corresponded to that belief : it is possible
that the belief may have existed without the corre
sponding reality ; it may have rested upon delusion.
But, at all events, the belief in the resurrection of
Jesus is itself a fact, and a fact of the greatest sig
nificance for all history, which cannot be passed
over without explanation by any one who would
thoroughly comprehend the history of our race.
Now, whoever refuses to interpret this fact simply
in this way, " The disciples believed that Jesus had
risen, because he really had risen from the dead,"
assumes the burden of proving how this belief could

THE MIRACLES. 127
have originated and become established without the
actual resurrection. The task is even more defi
nite : the belief of the disciples was not a mere in
definite behef, but they believed that they had seen
and heard Him who had risen from the dead. This
is also a fact which no one can reasonably doubt.
We have not only the testimony of the Gospels for
it : we have the evidence of the Apostle Paul, who
declares (1 Cor. xv.) that Jesus, after he had risen,
was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, then by
more than five hundred brethren at once, then by
James, afterwards by all the apostles ; and at last
he adds, that he himself had seen him, referring to
the appearance near Damascus.
Let me not be misunderstood. I do not pretend
that this belief that they had seen him is all that is
needed to prove that they really saw him. I only
say it is a fact that they believed that they had seen
him, — a fact which must be explained. It is not
enough to say, It was an illusion. This is no explana
tion ; for we then ask, How was an illusion possible
in this case ? And this distinctly states the problem
which is to be solved : namely, to show how the dis
ciples could have come to the belief, that they had
seen Him who had risen from the dead.
I may perhaps assume that one kind of explana
tion is exploded, and out of the way : I mean the
view that Jesus was only apparently dead, that he
recovered from a death-like fainting spell, and that
hence the disciples believed that he had risen from
the dead. This view of the old rationalism, though

128 THE MIRACLES.
it may be found here and there as a relic of past
times, no longer needs to be refuted ; for, so far as I
know, it no longer has a defender. The present
prevailing view is, that the belief of the disciples
was based upon no objective facts, but merely upon
subjective visions, internal sights.
You have all heard, of course, that the occurrence
of such visions or hallucinations is a matter of
experience. Persons see something, hear voices,
without the object which they see and the, voice
which they hear being really in existence. This is
not hard to explain. When the rays of light which
proceed from an object outside of us come in contact
with the organ of sight, or when sounds meet the
organ of hearing, an excitement of the nerves is
caused, which is communicated to the brain, and
awakes in us the idea representing the object which
we see and hear. The excitement is internal ; but
we learn by experience to think of the object from
which the excitement proceeds as being outside of
us : we see it outside of us. This same nervous
excitement can occur simply internally, without any
rays of light or any sounds coming from without,
— either from an ill state of health, or from great
mental agitation. The same process then takes
place : the nervous excitement awakes the idea
representing an object or a sound; and, although
the occurrence is purely internal, the person thinks,
as usual, that the objects are outside of him. He
sees an object, a person who is not there ; he hears
voices which are not there. In this way are to be

THE MIRACLES. 129
explained, for instance, the' visions of the Maid of
Orleans, and the voices which she heard. But we
need not go so far for instances of this kind : there
are descriptions in the New Testament of undoubted
visions, (we may add caused by God ; for God uses
this means also). When Peter, before the conver
sion of Cornelius the centurion, saw a sheet de
scend from heaven, containing clean and unclean
animals (Acts x. 9, et seq.), the sheet was not
really there, — it was a vision.
Such a vision, it is said, was the disciples? sight
of Him who had risen, — a purely internal event,
to which nothing external corresponded, but which
they, as is so common with visionaries, were unable
to recognize as merely internal. They saw the risen
one, they heard his voice ; and were naturally, espe
cially since they were uneducated people, convinced
in good faith that he was actually present, and
spoke to them. They could not distinguish the vis
ion from an outward event.
At this point we disagree. It is said that they
were unable to distinguish between these things:
was Paul unable to do it ? Paul was able in other
cases to distinguish between a vision and real
sight. He tells (2 Cor. xii. 1, et seq.) of the cele
brated vision in which he was caught up into the
third heaven ; and how distinctly does he describe
this occurrence as a vision! On the other hand,
whenever he speaks of the appearance of the risen
Lord to him, he invariably speaks of it as a simple
sight. Besides, the entire context requires this;

130 THE MIRACLES.
for when the Apostle Paul, in order to prove his
apostolic worth, appeals to the fact that he too had
seen the Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1) as the other apostles
had, his sight must have been just such a sight as
theirs, — consequently a real, and not a visionary
one, — or the reasoning would amount to nothing.
When he founds the hope of our resurrection upon
the resurrection of Jesus, it is only possible in case
he regards the appearance of the risen Lord as a
real external event. There can be no doubt upon
this point : Paul himself, who in other instances re
cognizes visionary occurrences, perceives no such
thing here. His whole apostolic consciousness, his
conversion, his faith, his life and work, are founded
upon the conviction that he had seen the Lord, not
merely in a vision, but in reality.
Paul was not the only person who saw him.
There were also the eleven apostles and the five
hundred brethren at once. The fact is established,
— it cannot be shaken without arbitrary dealing.
Where in the world do you find a vision which more
than five hundred persons had at once ? How could
the same excitement of the senses, the same agita
tion of the mind, have originated in five hundred
persons at the same time ? Was it not impossible
by natural means ? Weisse extricates himself by
saying that it was a vision caused by God. In this
case I might stop arguing, for here we have a mir
acle in the strictest sense of the term. Weisse,
however, stands almost alone in this view. The
aim of others is to do away with the miracle.

THE MIRACLES. 131
Therefore they generally suppose a vision originat
ing in natural causes. But again I repeat, How
does it happen that eleven, or so many as five hun
dred, persons have the same vision ? Where is any
thing like it to be found ?
The greatest difficulty is encountered when one
tries to clearly explain in his own mind the origin
of this vision, and it is fair to require that this be
done. Visions do not arise of themselves : every
vision presupposes a corresponding state of mind.
The Maid of Orleans saw visions, because she kept
herself in an ever-increasing excitement over the
ideas which were only embodied in those sights ;
she heard in the voices only repetitions of her own
thoughts. Was it so with the disciples ? Did they
expect the resurrection ? Were they in such an
exalted frame of mind, that such apparitions filled
their souls ? The direct opposite of this is true.
If any fact is settled, this is settled, — that the dis
ciples were utterly disheartened after the Lord's
death ; they did not understand his suffering and
dying; a suffering Messiah was totally incompre
hensible to them, the cross destroyed all their hopes.
Their state of mind at that moment is well denoted
by the remark of the disciples on the way to Em-
mans : " But we trusted that it had been he which
should have redeemed Israel." Is it to be supposed
that from this state of mind they experienced the
vision ; that they suddenly beheld the crucified one
as the glorified one ? Strauss attempts to make
this conceivable. He thinks the impression which

132 THE MIRACLES.
Jesus made on his disciples during his life took a
more lively form after his death. They applied the
prophecies of the Old Testament to themselves, and
found therein that what was said of the eternal life
and the glory of the Messiah could only be realized
by first coming through death. Besides, they had
prototypes in the Old Testament, especially Elias,
who also took his body into the heavenly regions.
But let me ask, All this change in three days ? In
three days an entirely new view of the Messiah and
his work ? In three days an entirely new interpret
tation of the prophecies ? In three days such an
entire revolution of all the opinions and hopes in
which they had lived from childhood ? The third
day he rose from the dead, — confesses the whole
ancient Christian tradition. Even if we grant that
such a change were possible without the interven
tion of some great event, it is too much to expect us
to believe it possible within three days. The third
day is very troublesome for Strauss ; and he devises
a conjecture, that the disciples at first, without any
idea of a resurrection, returned to Galilee, and that
there the change gradually came to pass. But this
is flying in the face of history, and substituting
groundless conjectures for sure testimony. The
third day is not only certified by Paul, and through
him by Peter, — we have the most overwhelming
evidence for it in the celebration of this third day,
Sunday, which reaches back into the apostolic age.
Whence comes this unanimous testimony, " the
third day he rose from the dead," if on this third

THE MIRACLES. 133
day no real event took place upon which the cer
tainty that " the Lord is risen " was based ? In the
face of this testimony, every possibility of making a
vision conceivable vanishes.
There is still another question. What became
of the body of Jesus ? This question also is very
troublesome to our opponents : they try to evade it
by every artifice of speech, saying that nothing de
pends upon it ; that now no one can know any thing
about it. But let us not be diverted. We repeat,
What became of the body of Jesus if he did not rise
from the dead ? If it remained in the tomb, then
tell me why' his enemies did not simply point to the
tomb, to the dead body lying in it, and thereby put
an end to the whole illusion of a resurrection, to all
fanaticism and all visions. Can it be supposed that
the enemies of Christianity — and it had enemies
as determined as they Were clever — would not have
used this simplest of means to destroy Christianity ?
Had they no interest in doing so ? The announce
ment of the resurrection was a direct attack upon
the supreme council, upon the rulers of the Jews :
it contained the gravest charge against them that
could be made against a Jew, — the charge that
they had killed the Messiah. Yet are they sup
posed to have kept silence, or to have contented
themselves with saying that it was not true, or to
have stooped to such weak replies as this, that his
disciples had stolen him away; when they could
have vindicated themselves at once by the simplest
of means, — by opening the tomb and showing the

134 THE MIRACLES.
dead body ? That is impossible. The tomb must
have been empty, as even Renan does not venture
to deny. The next question is, Who took the body
away from the tomb ? I cannot be contented with
a number of mutterings about mysteries, and ne
cessary ignorance. There are only three possible
answers, — either his enemies, or his friends, or,
finally, some unknown third person. Was it his
enemies ? This is not possible, for they would have
said so. Was it his friends ? This also is not pos
sible ; for then they would have been impostors of
the most shameless sort, and I hope that no one
here needs to be convinced that they were not such.
Then some unknown third person, who, without the
disciples' knowledge, for some unknown reason, took
away the body of Jesus, and for, some unknown rea
son was silent about it afterwards. If that person
had not done it, or had only broken his silence, then
the belief in the resurrection would not have arisen.
One word from this imknown person, and the belief
in the resurrection would have been impossible ;
Christianity would not have sprung up ; the whole
course of the world, the entire history of our race,
would have been different. Every thing depended
upon the chance, that the mysterious Unknown
would take a notion, no one knows why, to abstract
the body of Jesus from the tomb ; every thing de
pended upon the still stranger chance, that he would
keep perfectly silent about it. If you can believe
that ; if you can make the most significant change
in the history of our race, in the whole course of the

THE MIRACLES. 135
world, depend upon an accident, — then look to the
results of such a view of the world. It would be
useless to waste another word against it.
Hume, whose strife against miracles Strauss es
teems very highly, tries to do away with them by
showing that it is invariably more probable that the
best witnesses should have erred, than that a mira
cle should have occurred. The best testimony is said
to have the weight of a feather in comparison with
the exceedingly ponderous improbability of a mir
acle. I think, however, that I have shown on which
side the exceedingly ponderous improbability lies.
That Paul's whole faith, life, occupation and work
were founded upon a delusion ; that five hundred
persons have a vision at once ; that the thoroughly
disheartened disciples became totally different per
sons within three days, without the occurrence of
any corresponding event, that the whole course of
the history of the world depended upon the chance
act of some unknown person, — these, I hope you
will say with me, are nothing but exceedingly pon
derous improbabilities : and we may venture to say,
whoever denies the resurrection to be a fact, deals
with mere enigmas and incomprehensibilities. A
simple, unbiassed treatment of history compels us
to acknowledge the fact; Christ really rose from
the dead.*
It is of course always possible to think, in spite
of all that has been said, that this cannot be correct.
He who cannot explain how Paul became convinced
* See Note I. p. 157.

136 THE MIRACLES.
that he could work miracles, or how the disciples
came to the belief that Jesus had risen from the
dead, may still assert that no real miracle can have
taken place ; for miracles are not possible, are not
to be reconciled with reason. Then he assumes the
point of view from which he does not subordinate
his ideas to realities, but sets them above realities ;
he does not adapt his theories to the facts, but
wishes the facts to adapt themselves to his theories ;
and he is not far from the stan'dpoint of Voltaire, —
from saying, I will not believe a miracle. Then
all discussion ceases. But, from the natural science
of the present day, this at least ought to have been
learned, — that our reasoning must follow facts, that
it is properly only a consideration of facts. This de
mand alone is just, — that miracles shall be brought
within the line of our reasoning, that it shall be
shown that they do not contradict a correct reason
ing about God and the world.
In the question of miracles, every thing depends
upon the view we hold of God and the world, and
the relations of God to the world. The atheist, who
believes in no God, can of course believe in no mira
cle. The materialist who knows nothing but mat
ter, finite matter, no Spirit in the world and over
the world, can naturally find no miracle. It is
equally impossible to conceive of miracles from the
pantheistic standpoint. If God and nature are one,
the idea of a miracle is self-contradictory ; for to
say that God does something which cannot take
place through the intrinsic powers of the laws of

THE MIRACLES. 137
nature, means, from this standpoint, God does
something which cannot take place through his own
intrinsic laws. As miracles vanish when the dis
tinction between God and the world is entirely
removed, so also when God and the world are sep
arated, so that God has no longer any connection
with the world, the development of the world runs
like a musical clock, which plays the single melody
that has been arranged by fixed pins within it.
Miracles require a free, personal God, who rules
over the world and still works in the world ; they
presume a relative independence, and at the same
time a dependence, of the world upon God.
That is only preliminary. Let us first consider
the argument by which some think they can prove
the impossibility of miracles directly from the stand
point of natural science. The entire universe, it is
said, is an organized whole, with fixed laws. These
laws rule not only upon our earth, but everywhere,
so far as our observations extend. Our telescopes
show that the same law of gravity which regulates
the fall of a stone upon the earth, also governs the
course of the most distant stars. The# spectral an
alysis has lately furnished the proof, that the same
chemical laws prevail in the sun and stars as in the
earth. These laws have ruled for ever. The form
of the earth, the layers of rocks prove it of a time
long before the foot of man trod the earth. Every
where, wherever we look, we find a close-bound
chain of final causes and effects governed by fixed
laws. So long as this knowledge of the rule of law

138 THE MIRACLES.
in nature was undiscovered by men, they could
naively imagine that God intervened here and there,
that he worked miracles. But since men have dis
covered this knowledge through the progress of the
natural sciences, it is no longer possible to believe
a miracle. A miracle on God's part would be arbi
trariness ; it would be breaking his own law at
will : on the part of the world, it would be an in
terruption of her legitimate course.
It has been thought that the best way of avoiding
this conclusion was the utter denial of the existence
of natural laws ; as is done, for instance, by the
ultramontane Dogmatik of the Roman-Catholic
theologian Perrone. According to Perrone, every
thing that occurs is simply the result of a special
act of the will of God. The existence of natural
laws is only seeming, — they exist only in our
thoughts. The fact, for instance, that from barley
grows barley, and not thistles, is not the result of a
natural law, but in every single case it is the result
of an act of the Divine will. The existence also
of species and races is only in appearance. There
exist in reality only individuals, whom God in every
single case guides and governs according to his
special will. At the first glance, this view of the
world may seem to be the truly religious one. In
it there is no more difficulty with miracles. They
are works of the Divine will, like every thing else.
Every thing is now miraculous ; every thing takes
place from and by a direct intervention of God.
But let us not overlook the other side. Where

THE MIRACLES. 139
every thing is miracle, nothing is miracle. The
distinction ceases between what is and what is not
miraculous. On this account the denial of natural
laws is questionable directly from a religious point
of view ; and it is also questionable on other ac
counts. It is a mere delusion to fancy that we have
any interest in denying the existence of natural
laws. Should not the power and wisdom of God
appear as great — yes, and greater — to us when we
perceive the laws which he has given to the world,
by which the stars keep their paths and the worm
leads its life in the dust, than when we refer every
thing that occurs, in every single case, to a special
act of God's will ? Indeed, if moral dealing is pos
sible only in a world which moves by fixed laws,
have we not, inversely, a moral and religious inter
est in admitting the existence of laws of nature ?
We admit, without hesitation, the premise of that
reasoning : the universe is an organized whole, which
moves by fixed laws. But does it immediately fol
low that every miracle, every intervention of the
Divine will in this organized whole, is a disturb
ance ? According to the law of gravity, a ball must
run down on an inclined plane. If I, by my free
will, take hold of it and stop its course, is that a
disturbance of the laws of nature ? Apart from the
¦intervention of free will, every thing moves by nat
ural law : even the effect which the act of the will
has caused remains with its results under the rule
of the law of nature. In an uncultivated field, a
•certain vegetation will develop itself according to

140 THE MIRACLES.
the laws of nature, according to the character of the
soil, the climate, the region. If man intervenes,—
ploughs the land, sows grain, so that a cornfield
grows where thorns and thistles were before, where
do you find any disturbance of the legitimate
course ? That which has taken place, however,
would not have taken place without the free act of
man, which was not done from the necessity of the
laws of nature. Why then is it said to be a disturb
ance, if the free will of God intervenes anywhere ?
Here also it is true, as Rothe rightly insisted, that
the result of this intervention remains entirely sub
ject to the law of nature. The wine which the Lord
made at the wedding in Cana was governed by the
laws of nature, just as all other wine; the bread
which he multiplied in the wilderness, just as all
other bread. Is it a disturbance that there is some
wine in the world which was not pressed from grapes
that grew on the vine ; some bread which was not
made of flour by a baker ? It is no more of a dis
turbance than that the ball which I hold up does
not roll down ; than that where man tills the ground
a cornfield grows up instead of thorn-bushes. Where
is the disturbance in this case ?
It is, perhaps, replied, The disturbance is the
intervention itself. Very well : the reply only serves
to indicate the precise fault of the whole argument.
It consists in confounding a system, organized ac
cording to fixed laws, with an absolutely closed
complex of final causes. That the world is an
organized whole, is granted; but that it must be

THE MIRACLES. 141
such an absolutely closed complex of final causes,
absolutely closed against every other causality, is a
proposition plainly unproved, and I may add plainly
incapable of proof. It may be shown on the con
trary, that, according to reasonable thinking, this
complex of final causes must once at least have
stood open to a higher causality. A miracle at the
beginning must be admitted, unless one is willing
to give up all reasoning about the origin of this
world. Let us examine for a moment the train of thought
of those who think they can comprehend every thing
by final causes, and see whether we thereby reach
a satisfactory result. We start with the present
world, with the present state of animal and vegeta
ble life, and from this go backwards. The perfect,
it is said, has developed from the imperfect; the
higher animals from the lower. The Darwinian
theory shows us, to-day, how all animals are de
scended from some few original animal forms. We
go backwards therefore from species to species, and
find, extending up to these original forms, an un
broken chain of final causes and effects. But these
first animals, how did they originate ? From the
plants ? Even the natural science of the present
day has not made this comprehensible. We stand
before a chasm over which we cannot pass without
a beginning of creation ; that is to say, without a
miracle. The animal, as Martensen beautifully
says, is a miracle to the plants. But suppose we
leap the boundary between the animals and plants,

142 THE MIRACLES.
and assume that the first animals sprung, in a
perfectly natural way, from the plants ; and go still
farther back, to the first plant-cells : consequently,
to the first mother of all living beings on the earth.
But whence did the first plan-A-cell originate ? From
inorganic things ? At this point natural science
says, decidedly, No : never does the organic develop
from the inorganic : the living from the dead. We
stand again before a chasm, which is still wider than
the first ; and again nothing can help us over but an
act of creation by which the first plant-cell was called
into life : hence, a miracle. The plant is a miracle
for the stone. But suppose we even pass over this,
and on to the time when our entire solar system
was still a great ball, a world of cloud ; and yet
farther, — to the time when the world was still noth
ing but mere single, separate, freely moving atoms.
How did the world, with its magnificence and infi
nite variety, grow out of these characterless and
unrelated atoms ? The atoms, it is said, gathered
themselves together, nuclei were formed, — but
stop ; we must let nothing slip : How did this come
to pass ? I will not ask, Whence came the atoms
themselves ? I will also overlook the fact, that this
whole doctrine of atoms begins to be very doubtful
in natural science : I will only ask, How did it come
to pass that the first two atoms united ? The power
that united them cannot have lain in themselves,
for they were characterless atom^-but granted that
such a power did lie iii them, how did it happen
that they got in motion, ^s-'that this power all at

THE MIRACLES'. 143
once came into action ? Another power must have
existed, must have intervened, — a power outside of,
above, the atoms, — a higher causality. Whether
any one succeeds or not in explaining the whole
development of the world from mere final causes,
without the intervention of a higher causality, he
will never succeed in explaining the beginning, even
if it consists simply in the union of two atoms, with
out such an intervention. As long as this result is
not attained, so long may the proposition that this
finite world is shut against a higher cause be marked
unproved ; so long must we lay it down as a demand
of the reason itself, that the world is open to this
cause ; or, in other words, that miracles are pos
sible.* Possible, — but that is not the same as neces
sary; and, even if the necessity of a miracle of
creation be admitted, that does not prove the neces
sity of miracles in the midst of the course of the
world's development. On the contrary, after God
has once created the world, must we not suppose
that he made it so good, so perfect, so self-sus
tained, that it needed no further intervention on
his part ? It is thus fancied that we gain a reli
gious interest in behalf of the denial of miracles. It
is unworthy of God to suppose that the world needs
his miraculous intervention, that he must repair it
as a workman mends a badly-made machine. We
can admit no miracles ; because we cannot suppose
that the world was imperfectly created.
* See Note II. p. 159.

144 THE MIRACLES.
Certainly not. It was all "very good." But,
leaving out altogether the question, whether even a
perfectly made world did not require a miracle for
its completion (for perfect is not the same as fin
ished), cannot the world have become imperfect?
Give me an answer from no theory of any kind, but
from experience. Thousands of years ago, old
Homer said, —
" Of all that breathes, or grovelling creeps on earth,
Most vain is man! calamitous by birth." *
To put a more modern witness by his side, I re
member a saying of Goethe's, who was, if ever
man was, gifted with all that this world can give.
Towards the end of his life he once said, " When I
look back over my whole life, and count all the days
when I have enjoyed pure, unalloyed happiness, I
make up no more than the length of a month."
Will you in spite of such avowals, in spite of all the
want, poverty, illness, wretchedness, misery and
death, still say this world is perfect ? For the sake
of a theory perhaps you will: what will one not
say to save a theory ? But experience says, No. If
the world is imperfect, — if God cannot have cre
ated it imperfect, — then it must have become im
perfect. By what means ? I come to the decisive
question, — a question, it is true, rather of the con
science than of the understanding. Is there any
sin ? Or is that also a childish notion, which we
* Odyssey, book xviii. 1. 130, 131 ; (Pope's Translation, book xviii.
1. 157, 168).

THE MIRACLES. 145
highly cultivated people of the nineteenth century
have outgrown ? The Scriptures declare sin to be a
fact ; and our conscience, whether we like it or not,
answers, Yes. A disturbance has thus broken into
the world, a hindrance and corruption of its develop
ment ; * and if the goal of completion which God set
before the world shall still be reached, then it needs
an intervention of God, a restoration, a miracle of
redemption. The fundamental confession of Christ
endom is, that it confesses this miracle of restoration
to have taken place, in that the Son of God became
man, and redeemed us. All the other miracles
which the Scriptures relate can only be understood
in connection with this miracle. The miracles of
the Old Testament are premonitions and warnings
of this miracle ; all the miraculous deeds of Jesus
are only single expressions of it. He who came to
put away sin, and with it all evil, — sickness also,
and death, as the consequences of sin, — heals
the sick and raises the dead. He who came to
restore the disturbed development exercises power
over nature, turns water into wine, and stills the
tempest. His miracles are at once prophecies of
the consummation, anticipations, prototypes, of what
shall take place at the end of days, when the mira
cle of redemption shall be expressed in the comple
tion of all things, and every thing shall become
new. I may now be permitted to ask again, if that is a
disturbance. Do you think it a disturbance of life
* See Note III. p. 162.
10

146 THE MIRACLES.
when a physician restores a sick system to health ?
I may now ask whether you regard it unworthy of
God to thus intervene in the world, healing and
saving. It is now very plain how groundless the
charge is, that the miracles are arbitrary on the
part of God. It is a sheer caricature, and not at
all the Biblical idea of miracles, when they are con
ceived to be incidental interventions in nature at
God's pleasure, as arbitrary displays of power, with
no other object than to display that power. Cer
tainly they are that also, — displays of the power of
the living God, who rules over the world, who gave
it the laws by which it lives ; and they are likewise
intended to show directly before the eyes of men,
that there is a living God, who works miracles (Ps.
Ixxvii. 15). But, in the highest sense, they are
manifestations of his love, — miracles of love, of the
merciful, redeeming, saving love, which will not let
the world that has fallen into sin be lost in it, but
will lead the world, that has strayed into false
ways, back towards the goal of perfection, which
this love has set before it. They are thus the exact
opposite of arbitrariness : they are in the highest
sense designed.
While looking, at the miracles in the light of the
divine decree of salvation, regarding them as the
acts of God for our redemption, we feel that we
ourselves are thus placed in the midst of miracles.
The miracle of redemption is constantly expressed
among us in miracles, in the sublime spiritual
miracles, — the miracles of grace. In the miracles

THE MIRACLES. 147
of conversion, of regeneration, of sanctification, we
have miracles which do not belong to past times,
but which take place to-day ; and whoever has ex
perienced any thing of these miracles in his own
heart, possesses in himself, in the change of his life,
in the peace which he enjoys, in the comfort which
refreshes him, in the hope which lifts him up above
all else, the actual proof that there are miracles.
This proof I can furnish to no one : that must be
done by another, — the Spirit, which " beareth wit
ness with our spirit that we are the children of
¦God." We now return to the thoughts from which we
set out several weeks ago. Faith cannot be demon
strated to any one ; but obstacles can be removed,
and this we ought to attempt. According to my
ability, I have attempted it ; and if I have suc
ceeded in but a small measure, in proving that our
faith is still unsubdued by modern science ; if per
haps I have thereby strengthened any one in his
faith and protected him from importunate doubts;
or if I have been able to rouse any one to meet
these questions no longer with indifference, and
with the excuse that this has all been done away
with long ago, and is worth no more thought, — if I
have succeeded in only some part of these things,
this is the blessing which I entreat for these dis
courses. Permit me a word in conclusion. The present
position of the Church is in the highest degree
grave. The question is, whether nature shall take

148 THE MIRACLES.
the place of the living God — the Lord of heaven
and earth — in the faith of our people, and the
place of Christianity be assumed by a religion of
humanity, if it may be called a religion. It is the
question, whether mankind has been deceived by
the appearance of Jesus and the spread of Chris
tianity, and has been urged into a wrong road ; so
that now, since history and criticism, and especially
the natural sciences, have shown the Christian faith
to be a delusion, nothing remains but to break off
its development, and begin again where it departed
from the right way, — at the heathenism of the
Greeks and Romans. That is essentially the view
of a French school, which is represented by such dis
tinguished names as Burnouf, Maury, and others ; *
and Renan is not far from it. This school holds,
that, by the progress of Christianity, we have been
drawn into Semitic ideas, which run directly con
trary to our Japhetic traditions and instincts. The
connection with these must be renewed ; and then
the tendency of the Japhetic spirit, the character
of which is described as a pantheistic view of na
ture, must certainly prevail. Similar views are
also expressed among us more and more openly;
and some do not hesitate to treat Christianity as a
phenomenon whose day has gone by, and which can
no longer stand before modern science. The " Life
of Jesus " by Strauss is evidently based upon this
view. On the other hand, there are many who think
* See Note IV. p. 163.

THE MIRACLES. 149
that Christianity and the Church can only be pre
served by squaring itself to the rules of the culture
of the present day, from which it is said to be too
much estranged. It is said that for this reason we
must resolve to give up a part of the ancient faith,
to yield some untenable positions to the pressure
of science, in order thereby to make more sure of
the main substance. From this circle came the
" Character of Jesus " by Schenkel. That there are
many in this circle who truly and sincerely desire
to preserve Christianity and the Church, I do not
doubt ; but I am none the less sure, that the way
they take to do it cannot be the right way. What
they abandon is not the unessentials, but the very
essence, of Christianity ; not temporary forms, but
its inalienable substance : and their labor will only
serve to prepare the way for those who come after
them to reject it altogether. It is certainly the
business of the Church to keep in active connection
with the development of modern culture ; not, how
ever, by retreating before it, but by pervading it
with the Christian spirit. To be able to do this, it
must neither despise nor shun science and culture.
Not every thing, it is true, which is now passed off
for science and culture, is true science and genuine
culture. No Christian may despise true science,
for it is a gift of God ; and to do that would be
contrary to the declaration of the great apostle of
the Gentiles : " All are yours." Nor may Christian
ity shun any science, — neither history and criticism,
nor the natural sciences. It is true that they can-

150 THE MIRACLES.
not give us what is highest and best ; but we abide
in the conviction that they cannot take it away from
us, and we are also ready to give an answer to every
man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in us.
Still the final, thorough, heart-winning proof of the
truth of the Christian faith must be set forth by
our lives.
I will close by reminding all of you, that the best
defence of the life of Jesus is the life of a Christian
in whom Jesus lives. Let us all work together in
this defence.

NOTES.

ON THE FIRST DISCOURSE.
I AM aware that an authority like Ritter, in his essay,
" Ernest Renan on the Natural Sciences and His
tory," * defends Renan against the charge of pantheism.
Pantheism has a somewhat Protean nature ; and it is not
difficult to give pantheistic thoughts a turn so as to appear
as if one only desired, in opposition to an abstract deism,
to teach of a God who lives and works in the world. This
much, however, can be said with perfect certainty : Renan's
God is not the God of the Scriptures. To be sure he
says it is an incomplete, theology to conceive of God as
merely synonymous with " la totale existence," as merely
" in fieri." " Dieu est plus que la totale existence, il est en
meme temps l'absolu. II est l'ordre ou les mathematiques,
la m^taphysique, la logique sont vraies : il est le lieu de
l'id&d, le principe vivant du bien, du beau, et du vrai.
Envisage' de la sorte, Dieu est pleinement et sans reserve ;
il est (Sternal et immuable, sans progres ni devenir." Let
any one compare this with the following sentences : " De
qui est done cette phrase qu'un bienveillant anonyme
m'addressait il y a quelques jours : ' Dieu est immanent
non-seulement dans l'ensemble de l'univers, mais dans cha-
* " Ernst Renan fiber die Naturyrissenschaften und die Geschichte "
(Gotha, 1865).

152 NOTES.
cun des etres qui le composent. Seulement il ne se connait
pas egalement dans tous. II se connait plus dans la
plante que dans le rocher, dans 1'animal que dans la
plante, dans I'homme que dans 1'animal, dans I'homme
intelligent que dans I'homme born<3, dans I'homme de
genie que dans I'homme intelligent, dans Socrate que
dans I'homme de genie, dans Bouddha que dans Socrate,
dans le Christ que dans Bouddha.' Voila la these fonda-
mentale de toute notre theologie. Si c'est bien la qu'a vou-
lu dire Hegel, soyons hegeliens."* The surest criterion
by which we may discern pantheism is the question whether
the world was created by the God who is supreme above it.
Renan recognizes no creation of the world : he at least
speaks of none in this treatise, according to the whole pur
port of which he must have expressed his opinion on the
subject. Therefore I think it is doing him no injustice to
count him among those who teach what is a kind of pan
theism, even if it be rather less palpable.
ON THE THIRD DISCOURSE.
I. p. 92. — The words of Papias, according to Eusebius
(Church History, iii. 39), run as follows: "Mark, after
he had become Peter's interpreter, wrote out accurately as
much as he remembered of the sayings and actions of the
Lord. This, however, was not done according to historical
order ; for he had not heard the Lord, and had not been one
of his followers, but had subsequently become a disciple of
Peter, who arranged his discourses to supply the wants of
the moment, and not as if he had intended to make a reg
ular collection of the Lord's sayings. Mark therefore made
* Revue des Deux Mondes, 1863, Livraison 15 Octobre; tome 47.
pp. 772, 773.

NOTES. 153
no mistake when he wrote down what he remembered, for
he simply undertook this one thing, neither to omit nor
to falsify any thing he had heard." The assertion which is
occasionally made to set aside the second Gospel, that this
testimony has no reference to it, is groundless. Its impor
tance has lately been more and more acknowledged. Al
though Holtzmann has made a fresh attempt to distinguish
the older form of the Gospel of Mark from the present
form, and to attribute only this older Gospel to Mark,
yet, according to Holtzmann himself, this distinction be
tween Mark's Gospel and the present second Gospel is
so slight, that we must still attribute the main substance
of the Gospel to Mark, and hence to the authority of
Peter. Besides, Holtzmann has by no means satisfac
torily proved the existence of such an original of Mark's
Gospel. H. p. 92. — Papias says concerning the Gospel of
Matthew (Eusebius, Church History, iii. 39) : " Matthew
put the sayings of the Lord together in the Hebrew tongue,
and every one interpreted them as he was able.'' Irenaaus,
Origen, and many others, also testify that an original He
brew writing is the basis of the Greek Gospel. The testi
mony for the Greek Matthew, however, reaches far back.
In a letter which was addressed to Barnabas, and was writ
ten, at the latest, in the beginning of the second century, a
passage from the Gospel of Matthew is quoted as if from
the text. Formerly, since we possessed this part of the
letter only in a Latin translation, it might seem doubtful
whether this stood at first in the original, or had perhaps
been added by the Latin translator. But several years
ago, in the old manuscript of the Bible discovered by
Teschendorf in the Convent of Sinai, there was found the

154 NOTES.
Greek original of the letter to Barnabas, and the quotation
was found to be the same in. this as in the Latin trans
lation. III. p. 97. — Irenaeus, in a letter to Florinus, a friend
of his youth, who afterwards apostatized, says, "While
I was yet a boy, I saw thee in company with Polycarp in
Asia Minor; for I bear in remembrance what happened
then, better than what happens now. What we have
heard in. childhood grows along with the soul, and be
comes one with it; so that I can describe the place in
which the blessed Polycarp sat and spake, his going in and
out, his manner of life, and the shape of his person ; the
discourses which he delivered to the congregation, how he
told of his intercourse with John and with the rest who
had seen the Lord; how he repeated their sayings, and
what he had heard from them respecting the Lord, his
miracles and his doctrine. As he had received all from
the eye-witnesses of his life, he narrated it in accordance
with Scripture. These things, by virtue of the grace of
God imparted to me, I listened to, even then, with eager
ness, and wrote them down, not on paper, but in my heart;
and, by the grace of God, I constantly bring them up again
fresh before my memory." *
IV. p. 98. — It is worthy of especial notice, that all the
newly discovered authorities of late years favor the Church's
view of the Gospels. The opposite would be expected if
this view were erroneous.
V. p. 100. — It has been thought that a strong point
* Neander'sAllgem.K.Gesch.,1. Band, iii. Abth. S. 1142. (Torrey's
Trans., vol. i. p. 677.)

NOTES. 155
against the genuineness was found in the conduct of the
Church of Asia Minor in the so-called paschal controversy.
The Christian paschal supper was joined in general with
that of the Jews, who kept their passover on the fifteenth
of the month Nisan, after having eaten the paschal lamb
on the evening of the fourteenth. But towards the end
of the second century a controversy arose between the
churches of Rome and Asia Minor concerning the particu
lars of the observance. The Roman Church celebrated
their paschal supper so as to continue their fasting through
the week in which the fourteenth of Nisan fell, without
regard to what day of the week it happened, until cock
crow on Sunday ; and then they began the joyful time of
Pentecost with a celebration of the communion. The
Church of Asia Minor, on the contrary, fasted only until
the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan ; then they had a
communion service, and went on to the joyful holiday. It
made no difference with them whether the fourteenth of
Nisan fell on Friday, as in the year of the Lord's death,
or on any other week-day. The Church of Asia Minor
appeals in behalf of this observance to the apostolic tradi
tion, and especially to John ; and this, it is said, is strong
evidence against the genuineness of the fourth Gospel.
It is said the observance shows that the Church of Asia
Minor regarded the fourteenth of Nisan as the date of the
institution of the Lord's Supper, for on this day they cele
brated the remembrance of its institution by a communion;
consequently, they thought the fifteenth of Nisan was the
day of Jesus' death. That agrees with the first three
Gospels, but not with the fourth; for (this is the further
presumption of this argumentation), according to the
Synoptic Gospels, Jesus ate the paschal lamb with the
Jews on the fourteenth of Nisan, and died on the fifteenth ;

156 NOTES.
according to John he died on the fourteenth, without hav
ing eaten the proper paschal lamb. How then, it is asked,
can the Church of Asia Minor appeal to John for their
custom, when his record of the date of Jesus' death directly
contradicts it ? The John who celebrated the fourteenth
of Nisan with the people of Asia Minor, as the day of the
institution of the Lord's Supper, cannot be the author of
the fourth Gospel, which says that the Lord died on that
very day. In fact, the people of Asia, Minor can have
known nothing about this Gospel, or they could not
have appealed to John.
The correctness of the single presumption upon which
this whole argumentation is based, need not be discussed
by us. The matter is not finally decided, and the opinions
concerning it are very much divided. To examine them
now would lead us too far. We will suppose for a moment
that such a difference did exist. Now, if the paschal feast
of the Church of Asia Minor was as it is claimed to have
been, if they observed the fourteenth of Nisan as the day
of the institution of the Lord's Supper, we should have
a bad case. . But this is not correct. Instead of this, the
late thorough investigations, especially those of Steitz and
Ewald, have shown that the people of Asia Minor kept
the fourteenth of Nisan as the day of Jesus' death. They
therefore held a communion on that day, in accordance
with the idea expressed by Paul and very widely spread
in the primitive Church, — that Christ, the real paschal
lamb, was sacrificed for us. It was perfectly proper for
them to refer to John as a witness in behalf of this custom,
and to appeal to the Gospel for it, — by which they meant
not the fourth Gospel, but the collective Gospel including
the fourth Gospel ; for the Church of Asia Minor at least
had no misgivings of a difference between this and the first
three Gospels.

NOTES. 157
VI. p. 107. — The attempts to distinguish a genuine
substance in the Gospel from later additions and re
visions, are based upon the supposition, that the Gospel
cannot be wholly unauthentic : they have no other objective
basis.' There is not the slightest trace of evidence which
can be made to favor such a division. These attempts,
therefore, are of a wholly subjective sort ; and, as usual in
such cases, they differ very much, according to the indi
viduals who contrive them. Where one person looks for
the genuine substance, another sees the unauthentic addi
tions. Weisse holds mainly that the discourses are genu
ine ; Renan, the historical narrative ; Schweizer, in the
ingenious efforts which he afterwards gave up, excluded
the Galilean miracles especially as unauthentic ; while
Schenkel finds in the story of the wedding at Cana what
is at least a genuine historical recollection. Schenkel has
in general followed his own inclination to the greatest
extent. He sets out with no principle, but merely with
the general supposition, that there is a genuine substance
to be traced to Johannine recollections. To actually dis
tinguish this, he does not proceed. A refutation in detail
is therefore impossible.

ON THE FOURTH DISCOURSE.
I. p. 135. — Schenkel, in his " General Ecclesiastical
Journal"* (vol. for 1865, No. 5), has expressed himself
more fully concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He there
rejects the view of a natural or miraculous re-awakening
of the body of Jesus that had been laid in the grave, and
also rejects the view of a mere vision. The resurrection
is said to be rather "the real mysterious self-revelation
* " Allgemeinen kirchlichen Zeitschrift" (Jabrgang 1865, Heft 5).

158 NOTES.
of the personality of Christ, which had come forth from
death, living and imperishable ; " that is to say, the cruci
fied body of Jesus remained in the grave, or was removed
in some way now undiscoverable, but he received forth
with a higher corporality, he lived on in a glorified state,
and thus manifested himself to his disciples. Since Schen
kel himself called this resurrection a miracle, even if not a
"miracle of magic, still a miracle of the higher divine
order of the world and of nature," I could pass over his
view in my discourse, and only remark here as follows : The
whole view is contrary not only to the Gospels, but also
and especially to 1 Cor. xv., notwithstanding Schenkel's
strenuous efforts to appropriate this chapter to himself.
Paul assuredly believed that the crucified Christ rose on
the third day from the grave. This is evident not only
from the connection of the burial and the resurrection
(1 Cor. xv. 4 ; compare also what is said about baptism
in Rom. vi. 4), not only from the constantly repeated
expression, " risen from the dead : " it is evident from the
whole argument of the apostle, from the connection of
the resurrection of Jesus with our resurrection. Paul
teaches not that we shall receive a new, more highly
organized corporality, but that our bodies sown in this
earth shall rise from the dead. An unbiassed exegesis
can have no doubt on this point. This view is also beset
by the same difficulties concerning the empty grave as the
visionary theory. Schenkel will hardly satisfy any one
with this view : not those who wish to set aside every
thing supernatural, for he asks them to believe something
which they will think as incomprehensible as the resur
rection ; and not those who say with the apostle, " If
Christ be not raised, your faith is vain," for they will
hardly let this ghost-story be foisted upon them in place

NOTES. 159
of the resurrection. Strauss has made a bitter, but true
remark. Schenkel, he said, preserved for Jesus what so
many took away from him, — the privilege of ghosting for
a while. Violently as Schenkel expresses himself against
what he calls the unprincipled dealing of those who mark
him as a denier of the resurrection, he has no right to do
it. His assertion that he does not deny the resurrection
of Jesus rests merely upon the fact, that he has substituted
something else for what has hitherto been understood to
be the resurrection. Since the times of the apostles, the
resurrection of Jesus has been understood to mean that he
came alive out of the grave. Schenkel denies this ; there
fore he denies the resurrection.
II. p. 143. — To show that natural science does not lead
away from God, that one can be a great naturalist without
losing his faith, I will add a few only of the confessions of
great natural philosophers. The epitaph which Copernicus
composed for himself is well known : —
"Not the grace bestowed upon Paul do I pray for;
Not tbe mercy by which thou pardonedst Peter :
That alone which thou grantedst the crucified thief, —
That alone do I pray for." *
Kepler closes his work on the Harmony of the Worlds
with these words : "I thank thee, my Creator and Lord, that
thou hast given me this joy in thy creation, this delight in
the work of thy hands. I have told men the glory of thy
works, so far as my finite spirit could comprehend thine
infinity. If I have said any thing unworthy of thee, or
* " Nicht die Gnade, die Paulus empfangen, begehr ich,
Noch die Huld, mit der du dem Petrus verziehn,
Die' nur, die du am Kreuze dem Schacher gewahrst hast
Die nur begehr ich."

160 NOTES.
have aspired for mine own honor, mercifully forgive me."*
Newton says, "We have Moses, the prophets and apos
tles, — yes, the word of Jesus himself. If we will not
consent with them, we are as inexcusable as the Jews."
Ritter, the founder of the modern geographical science,
says, "The magnificent structure of the sciences, which
man arrogates as his own, and even its highest step, phi
losophy, is by no means, as he fancies and proudly boasts,
only his own creation. It is only the unveiling of the
Master's work, and of the everlasting treasure of the truths
hidden therein, which, in a partial, earthly covering, the
creature is permitted by a special grace from above to
perceive and to understand, by the divine light that has
been poured into his soul. No branch of science can be
a living branch, can be a true branch, unless it springs,
free from all merely human devices, from the common
root that is deepest of all, and becomes thereby always and
chiefly a hymn of praise to God. A thousand branches
would spring forth from this tree of life, of eternity, of
all knowledge, if the eyes of the spirit were only open, and
the zeal of investigation were fired by the aspiration for
divine things. The world is everywhere full of the glory
of its Creator. Where power and knowledge do not reach,
revelation opens the gates to the view of time and eternity." f
Agassiz says, " I confess that this question, as to the nature
and foundation of our scientific classifications, appears to
me to have the deepest importance, — an importance far
greater indeed than is usually attached to it. If it can be
proved that man has not invented, but only traced this

* Kepleri Op. Om., ed. Dr. Frisch., vol. v., lib. iii. cap. xv., nota viii.,
pp. 406, 407. Franeofurti et Erlangse. 1864.
t Die Erdkunde von Asien, VIII. Band, I. Abth. p. x. Berlin : G.
Reimer. 1846.

NOTES. 161
systematic arrangement in nature ; that these relations and
proportions which exist throughout the animal and vege
table world have an intellectual, an ideal connection in
the mind of the Creator ; that this plan of creation, which
so commends itself to our highest wisdom, has not grown
out of the necessary action of physical laws, but was the
free conception of the Almighty Intellect, matured in his
thought before it was manifested in tangible, external
forms ; if, in short, we can prove premeditation prior to
the act of creation, — we have done, once and for ever,
with the desolate .theory which refers us to the laws of
matter as accounting for all the wonders of the universe,
and leaves us with no God but the monotonous, unvarying
action of physical forces, binding all things to their inevi
table destiny. I think our science has now reached that
degree of advancement in which we may venture upon such
an investigation." . . .
" And though I know those who hold it to be very un
scientific to believe that thinking is not something inherent
in matter, and that there is an essential difference between
inorganic and living and thinking beings, I shall not be
prevented by any such pretensions of a false philosophy
from expressing my conviction, that, as long as it cannot
be shown that matter or physical forces do actually reason,
I shall consider any manifestation of thought as evidence
of the existence of a thinking being as the author of such
thought; and shall look upon an intelligent and intelligible
connection between the facts of nature as direct proof of
the existence of a thinking God, as certainly as man exhib
its the power of thinking when he recognizes these natural
relations."* * Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of Amer
ica. By Louis Agassiz. Vol. i. pp. 9-11. Boston : Little, Brown & Co.
1857. 11-

162 NOTES.
Martius, the botanist, says, " Do you ask me what I have
gained as the fruit of a life of fifty years devoted to nat
ural philosophy ? Our age is far too much inclined to
assume, that the men who devote themselves to the culti
vation of the. natural sciences are turned away from faith
in what lies beyond the perception of the senses, that they
give no heed to the warnings of the spiritual basis of
things. But who is able, who is obliged, to perceive them
more plainly than the natural philosopher, who stands, not
at the side of the phenomena, but in the very midst of the
stream of life ? He certainly knows this, that this great
whole was made for only one God; and he also recog
nizes that something else rules in it besides the laws of
the visible world. These he seeks and finds more or less ;
and his understanding apprehends their harmonious co
operation as the expression of a most high, of a Divine
design. But he cannot penetrate to the cause ; and, with
the fullest confession of human insufficiency, he becomes
humble. — We trace back the phenomena according to
legal series and conditions, but we do not comprehend
them in their essence. Far off, in the incommensurable
distance, lies their primeval cause ; and the Oavfid^uv of
Plato, wonder, is not merely the beginning, but likewise
the end, of our investigation." When one looks at this
list, which might easily be made larger, of the confessions
of great naturalists, it sounds strange to hear it constantly
reiterated, that it is inconsistent with the present position
of the natural sciences to believe any longer in " God, the
Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth."
III. p. 145. — A few more testimonials from men who
will certainly not be suspected of orthodoxy. Schopen
hauer says, " If any thing could reconcile me to the Old

NOTES. 163
Testament, it would be the myth of the fall of man. For
in reality the condition of the world looks precisely like
the condition of punishment for a great past transgression."
" The world is fundamentally only so well arranged as is
necessary for its existence. If its arrangement were any
worse, it could not exist." Melchior Meyer (" The Con
troversy concerning Miracles," in the German Museum for
1865, No. 14*) says, " God cannot have created the world
in a state of actual perversion.'7 He thinks the men of
science have at last become so accustomed to the abomi
nation in the world, that it appears to them to be entirely
in order. According to Melchior Meyer the present con
dition of the world is the result of the fact, that mankind
did not stand the test to which they were put, and there
fore left the state of innocency. — We see that even they
who do not believe in revelation, come through their rea-'
son to the fall of man, the result of which is the imperfec
tion of the present world. Let men consider the fact that
so much evil and suffering in the world is rather serious !
IV. p. 148. — I cite as an example an opinion of a
member of this school, which is quoted in an interesting
article in the "Magazine of Foreign Literature" (1865,
14 et seq.).-\ " Weighed down by the custom of eighteen
hundred years, careless of our national origin, we are given
up to Semitic ideas which diametrically oppose our origi
nal traditions and instincts. Nevertheless these Japhetic
traditions and the tendency of this spirit are sure of the
palm of victory in the future. Preserved and cherished
in Greek and Roman antiquity, they were dormant in us
* " Der Streit iiber das Wunder im deutschen Museum, 1865, No.
14." t " Magazin fur die Literatur des Auslandes " (1865, 14 ff.).

164 * NOTES.
for a time, but awoke at the period of the Renaissance,
and led us on the path of free inquiry. Profound French
thinkers of our day point out our national origin in its
authentic monuments; and show that our wisdom is not
based upon blind subjection to arbitrary statutes, but that
the tendency of this spirit owes its birth and its origin to
the careful observation of the great facts of nature that
surround us, and of the laws that govern the world. A
history which is built upon the foundation of language, a
morality and a philosophy which have been won by a more
cheerful view of nature, and which, even in their errors,
do not deny their source, — the source which springs from
the mutual relations of beings to one another, — how
highly exalted are they in nobility and grandeur above
those dogmas which, despairing utterly of the . earth and
of mankind, make life a torture-chamber and man a dumb
sacrifice." The views of Burnouf, in his work on the In
dian Vedas, are similarly developed. According to his
view, the original tendency of the Aryan nations is pan
theistic ; that of the Semitic nations, monotheistic. He also
intimates that the Aryan tendency will finally prevail.

Cambridge ; Press of John Wilson & Son.