JUN H 1974 
 
 H 
 
 i » 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTOET. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 3u «^L^ JX,<-'iLL(XA^ -Wcu^i'ji >J+> 
 
 1 
 
 ' This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." — Matt, xsi., 12. 
 
 WILLIAMS A]VfD NORGATE, 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COYENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 
 AND 
 
 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 1869. 
 
" Nihil simul inventum fait et perfectum." 
 
coi^te:n'ts. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface vii to xx 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. Judaism 21 
 
 II. Sources of the Life of Jesus 55 
 
 III. The Synoptics 92 
 
 IV. ProbabiUties HI 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 I. The Gospel of the Infancy 129 
 
 II. The Precursor 151 
 
 III. The Herald of the Kingdom 170 
 
 IV. The First Gospel and the Third 198 
 
 V. The Preacher of Righteousness 218 
 
 VI. The Messiah 253 
 
 VII. Controversy 282 
 
 VIII. The Crucifixion 304 
 
 BOOK III. 
 
 I. Development of Dogma — Internal 338 
 
 II. Development of Dogma — Influence from without .... 378 
 
E R E A T A. 
 
 Page 38, line 31. — For " seemed " read " secured." 
 
 68, , 
 
 94, , 
 
 244, , 
 
 274, , 
 
 288, , 
 
 348, , 
 
 10. — For " differences " read " difference." 
 
 20. — For " formulae " read " formula," 
 2. — For " tliankgiving " read "thanksgiving." 
 1. — For " own fear for their " read " fear for their own." 
 
 25. — For " need " read " meed." 
 
 16. — After " false ones " add comma. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The idea of the present work was suggested to me 
 many years since by the sermon of a popular preacher 
 still living. He was combating the various excuses for 
 not receiving the Gospel which he supposed might be 
 urged by different classes of his audience, and, among 
 others, that of not being able to hear the very words of 
 Jesus and to witness his mighty acts. In answer to this 
 he drew a picture of Jesus as a man of humble station 
 and poor attire, suiTounded by a few followers of the 
 same condition in life as himself, and then asked if those 
 who now refused to believe the report of his life would 
 have been likely to have recognized his real dignity 
 beneath these humble appearances. The half- formed 
 purpose, however, of attempting a life of Jesus for the 
 purpose of depicting him from the point of view of his 
 contemporaries was almost at once renounced, not more 
 on account of conscious incapacity, than because of the 
 apparent impossibility of fusing the various evangelical 
 narratives into a clear and consistent whole. And I was 
 content to look upon it as a work that might one day be 
 accomplished by some more competent enquirer. 
 
 But the idea thus suggested remained with me; and 
 throughout the varied incidents of a not inactive life 
 I have continued to feel an interest in whatever might 
 tend to illustrate this aspect of the history of Jesus. 
 And when advancing years brought with them a position 
 of comparative leisure, I reverted to the subject ; origi- 
 nally with the view merely of forming such a concep- 
 
Vm PREFACE. 
 
 tion as might satisfy myself, and without any ulterior 
 purpose. In doing this I wrote down my views upon 
 many incidents, chiefly in the shape of criticisms 
 upon various works, orthodox and rationalistic ; these 
 gradually comprised the more salient points in the 
 biography ; and this suggested the idea of methodizing 
 and completing what I had begun. At this time I met 
 with D'Eichthal's "Les Evangiles," and a perusal of 
 that work gave a more definite form to my speculations, 
 and suggested many new conclusions in matters of 
 detail. It did not substantially alter my views with 
 regard to the character in which Jesus appeared to his 
 countrymen, nor as to the leading events of his life ; 
 but it was of great service in exhibiting the relations of 
 the first three Gospels to each other, and thus of furnish- 
 ing the materials for determining their several claims to 
 authority. In these respects I have seen reason to concur 
 in most of the opinions expressed by M. D'Eichthal, 
 though in many others I have been unable to adopt his 
 views. Probably I should scarcely have ventured upon 
 the present work but for the assistance derived from his 
 labours. I have in several places referred to him, but 
 these are only a few of the instances in which particular 
 views have been suggested by his book. I have not, 
 however, in any case accepted an opinion upon his au- 
 thority. My conclusions have uniformly been the result 
 of an independent investigation. I have been also in- 
 debted to M. E. Scherer's review of Eenan's "Vie de 
 Jesus" for many valuable suggestions. 
 
 It is difficult for one who has for many years read 
 all that he could meet with bearing upon a subject, 
 without at first taking any notes, to separate what has 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 been the independent fruit of his own inquiries from 
 what was, in the first instance, derived from others. 
 Possibly much that appeared to me in the course of 
 composition to be the spontaneous result of my own 
 meditations, may have been the unconscious reproduc- 
 tion of something which I had previously read. This, 
 indeed, though it might affect the character of the work 
 for originality, could not in any way detract from the 
 truth of its conclusions. These must rest entirely upon 
 their own intrinsic merits. 
 
 Possibly Dr. Strauss might say of the present work, 
 should he ever read it, as he did of Eenan's " Yie de 
 Jesus," that its conclusions would be very different if 
 the author had been familiar with the recent German 
 literature upon the subject. And I might no doubt 
 have derived great assistance from that literature if it 
 had been available to me ; but I know the works 
 of German authors only in translations, or through 
 notices in reviews or summaries. So far as the life 
 of Jesus and the earliest history of the church are 
 concerned, the materials lie within a very small com- 
 pass; and they are almost exclusively found in the 
 New Testament itself. And with regard to the Gospels, 
 the data for determining the time of their composition 
 and their probable authorship are either internal, or 
 found in a few early writers, most of whose sayings have 
 been preserved to us by Eusebius. And the questions 
 to be determined do not so much demand profound or 
 extensive research, as the unbiassed exercise of the judg- 
 ment ; in the first place, as to the value of certain sources 
 of evidence, and in the next as to the deductions to be 
 drawn from the evidence ultimately preferred. And in 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 these matters an Englisliman, who has had some ex- 
 perience of men and things, may perhaps be as well 
 qualified to judge as a German professor or divine. 
 Admitting the essential services that Germans have 
 rendered to the cause of free thought and critical in- 
 vestigation, and that, but for what they have done, such 
 a work as the present would have been well nigh im- 
 possible, it may, nevertheless, happen that a practical 
 mind, looking at the history from a less speculative 
 point of view, may be able to discover the causes and 
 connection of events in circumstances and influences 
 that have been hitherto overlooked or under-rated. 
 
 My object in the present work has been to place my- 
 self, as far as practicable, in the position of an inquirer 
 living before the fall of Jerusalem. Such, for instance, 
 as that of a Eoman who happened to have heard of 
 Paul's being sent as a prisoner to Eome, and wished to 
 learn the particulars of the life of that Jesus whom he 
 preached. Our difficulty in forming a true picture of 
 Jesus probably arises more from our being accustomed 
 to look at the incidents of his life chiefly through the 
 medium of the consequences which it has produced. It 
 is scarcely possible to resist the impression that events 
 which have been fraught with such great results must 
 have appeared of a corresponding importance to those 
 who witnessed them. This may have been the case^ but 
 it is almost contrary to analogy that it should have 
 been. And it would certainly seem that outside the im- 
 mediate circle of his disciples the life and death of Jesus 
 excited only a transient interest. They have left no 
 trace upon contemporary history or literature. He 
 entered Jerusalem in the assumed character of King 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 of the Jews, was delivered up by the Jewish authorities 
 to the Eoman Governor as a mover of sedition, and a 
 few hours afterwards was tried and executed. This is 
 all that our supposed Eoman enquirer could learn in the 
 first instance, for this is all that came under the cog- 
 nizance of the Eoman administration. And even this, ap- 
 parently, was not known outside the limits of Palestine. 
 
 This, however, would not sufiice to explain the cir- 
 cumstance that Jesus, as a Eedeemer, was still pro- 
 claimed. To understand how that could be the case, 
 it would be requisite to learn something as to the 
 character which he had assumed, — the hopes to which 
 he had appealed, — the doctrines he had taught, — and 
 the wonders which he was supposed to have performed ; 
 and then to enquire how it could happen, that, having 
 been put to death, he could still be believed in as living. 
 For this purpose the natural course would be to cause 
 enquiries to be made in Jerusalem itself by some one re- 
 siding there. At this time it is probable that the church 
 in that place possessed written statements, not only of 
 the teaching of Jesus, but of the events of his life, 
 which we may suppose might have been accessible to 
 a person in authority who shewed a friendly interest 
 in his history. And from these, from what might 
 be gathered from other sources, from the opinions and 
 practices of his followers, and from a perusal of their 
 sacred books (the Jewish Scriptures), a tolerable idea 
 might be formed of the actual life and doctrines of 
 Jesus, and of the circumstances to which the belief in 
 his resurrection was owing ; and although it would not 
 even then be altogether trustworthy, it would be as 
 nearly accurate as in the nature of things was possible. 
 
Xll PKEFACE. 
 
 The position of an enquirer at the present time is 
 very different. Our sources of information, if in part 
 original and belonging to this early period, have been 
 mixed with much that is of a later date ; and it is not 
 always possible to distinguish between them. The 
 church has from the first been in a constant state of 
 growth and development. As a living society, indeed, 
 it was impossible it could be otherwise. This has never 
 been more marked than during the half century that 
 succeeded the death of Jesus. And every change in the 
 Church itself would be reflected in its contemporary 
 literature. If Jesus may be spoken of as the source of 
 Christianity, it is only in the same sense as that in which 
 we speak of the Brege as the source of the Danube. Both 
 the creed and the stream have been swelled by innumer- 
 able accessions from sources known and unknown, and 
 the character of each has been profoundly modified by 
 the contributions it has received. And in the case of 
 Christianity, its earliest modifications were probably the 
 most important of all, since they fitted it to become 
 the religion of the Gentiles. These changes in the 
 position of the disciples must have produced a corres- 
 ponding change in their historical writings. Even 
 if the old were not altered, the new would depict the 
 life of Jesus under a changed aspect — would relate new 
 incidents, and would ascribe to him different views. 
 
 According to the uniform tradition of the Church the 
 Gospel according to Matthew was the earliest, that 
 according to Luke a later, and that according to John 
 the latest of the canonical Gospels. These two latter 
 exhibit just such a change as that we have suggested. 
 And the nature of the change manifests a general cor- 
 
PREFACE. XIU 
 
 respondence with contemporary changes in the position 
 and tendencies of the Church. 
 
 The present work exhibits in detail reasons for the 
 conclusion that the fourth Gospel was not the work of 
 the Apostle John, and attempts to shew the nature of 
 the influences to which its composition is attributable. 
 Even if we were to accept the statement of Irenaeus, 
 that it was composed by John in extreme old age in 
 Ephesus, it would not therefore be entitled to any more 
 credit as a history. For John was a leading member 
 (a pillar) of the Church at Jerusalem, certainly for nearly 
 a quarter of a century after the death of Jesus (Gal. ii., 
 9), and probably till the siege of the city ; during the 
 time, therefore, in which the traditions of that Church 
 were being formed, and when, presumably, the greater 
 part was reduced to writing. These traditions must, 
 consequently, have received his sanction as well as that 
 of Peter and James and the other Apostles. And it 
 would be impossible to attach any weight to a narrative 
 written forty years afterwards by one Apostle, which in 
 many particulars directly contradicts that which all the 
 Apostles, himself included, had before authorized, and 
 which depicts the nature and teaching of Jesus in an 
 entirely new light. 
 
 And instead of adopting the view of M. Eenan, that 
 it is impossible to understand the life and death of Jesus 
 excepting from the data of the fourth Gospel, the very 
 contrary conclusion seems to be forced upon us. The 
 Jesus whom M. Eenan depicts appears to be a purely 
 ideal character, having no relation to the actual circum- 
 stances of the time and country, and satisfying the re- 
 quirements neither of the critic nor of the believer. 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 And this is in a great measure owing to his adoption of 
 the fourth Gospel as an authority. It is true that the 
 " Vie de Jesus " is professedly somewhat of a historical 
 romance ; even thus regarded it appears to be want- 
 ing in truth of colouring, and to present an inaccurate 
 picture of Jesus. At the same time it is only just to 
 acknowledge the service which it has rendered to all 
 future enquirers by setting the example of depicting 
 Jesus as a real human being — acting from human im- 
 pulses, subject to human affections, and pursuing definite 
 objects by human means. And it contains innumerable 
 passages displaying great critical acumen and a subtle 
 appreciation of character and motives. 
 
 It seems to me that the earliest, and therefore the 
 most reliable, tradition is that which grew up in the 
 Church at Jerusalem under the superintendence of the 
 Apostles; and that this tradition may be traced in the 
 first Gospel. It has a Jewish character, but only because 
 this was the character of the opinions of the Apostles 
 themselves. And no reason can be given why later (or 
 even contemporary) accounts, springing up in distant 
 localities, among persons who knew nothing, except from 
 hearsay, either of the life of Jesus or of the circumstances 
 in which he was placed, should be allowed equal authority. 
 The materials employed have, therefore, been mainly de- 
 rived from this Gospel. It is too much to expect that the 
 picture presented will be accepted as true, but it may, 
 perhaps, be allowed to be intelligible, and even probable. 
 The Jesus who appears to be depicted in the original 
 tradition of the disciples — the pre-Christian tradition — 
 is a Jew, preaching to his countrymen the immediate 
 coming of that Kingdom of Heaven for which they were 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 waiting, and repentance and amendment as the conditions 
 of entrance ; — protesting against the narrow technical 
 morality and the absorbing ritual observances of the re- 
 ligious guides of the people, whose hostility he thus 
 excites ; — winning at first an amount of popular favour 
 that awakens the fears of the government, to avoid which 
 and the hostility of the Pharisees, he retires to Syro- 
 Phcenicia ; — then publicly entering Jerusalem in the 
 avowed character of the King of the Jews; — renewing 
 his conflicts with the Pharisees, and exciting the fears 
 and the enmity of the Chief Priests and Elders; — de- 
 livered by them to Pilate as a rebel against the authority 
 of Eome ; and as such crucified. Thus viewed, his own 
 proceedings and those of his adversaries appear natural 
 and consistent, and his death to have been the inevitable 
 consequence of his assumption of the character of the 
 Messiah. For the position of the Eomans in Judsea at 
 this time was such as to render them inexorable to any- 
 one who might threaten the public tranquillity by assert- 
 ing pretensions incompatible with their authority. In 
 their view Jerusalem was a nest of sedition, and every 
 Jew a rebel in heart, and prepared to be a rebel in fact 
 also whenever an opportunity offered. A person accused 
 of rebellion, therefore, could expect little mercy at their 
 hands. 
 
 The view thus taken may be objected to as failing to 
 account for the faith of the disciples and the spread of 
 Christianity. The question of the influences to which 
 these were due will be discussed in the course of the 
 work, and is therefore passed over now. Even, however, 
 if that question should appear incapable of a complete 
 answer, it must be remembered that there are forces 
 
XVI PREFACE. 
 
 in nature, and in human nature especially, that may 
 be set in motion or diverted by slight circumstances, and 
 that the magnitude and importance of a result generally 
 depends less upon the greatness of its so-called cause 
 than upon the relation which it sustains to those forces. 
 A grain of sand may be the origin of a pearl. A trifling 
 obstruction may be the occasion of changing the course 
 of a stream; and the effects of an explosion bear no 
 relation to the force inherent in the spark. In his- 
 tory, too, the instances are innumerable in which con- 
 sequences, at once wide-spread and enduring, have re- 
 sulted from some seemingly trivial occurrence. Up to 
 the present time Christianity certainly has not influenced 
 as many lives as Buddhism. And yet there is probably 
 no one, certainly there is no Christian, who would con- 
 tend on that account that the origin of Buddhism was 
 miraculous or divine. 
 
 An attempt has been made to exhibit the teaching of 
 Jesus as it was understood by those to whom it was 
 addressed. The ordinary method of interpretation, even 
 when it confines itself to elucidating the meaning of the 
 language employed, instead of endeavouring to set forth 
 all that may be deduced from it, appears to err in two 
 ways. It sometimes treats as absolute what was neces- 
 sarily relative, and it sometimes practically attributes to 
 Jesus a kind of dissimulation, or economy, by giving to 
 his words a meaning that shall make them harmonize 
 with other writings of the New Testament. As an in- 
 stance of the former, we may refer to the phrase, " What 
 therefore God hath joined let not man put asunder ; " 
 and of the latter, the closing words of the Sermon on 
 the Mount. But even if the modern interpretation 
 
PREFACE. XVU 
 
 were true for us, it obviously would not have been 
 true for those to whom Jesus spoke; since they could 
 only judge of his meaning according to their existing 
 view of his character, and with reference to the nature 
 and aspect of the questions with which he dealt. 
 
 And it may even be doubted whether the teaching 
 of Jesus was not in many respects relative in a wider 
 sense than is here suggested. In other circumstances, 
 and to a different people, we may conjecture that his 
 lessons would have been of a different character, and 
 would have enforced other duties. There are times 
 when self-respect is more important than humility, and 
 self-assertion than self-denial. And this truth was prac- 
 tically exemplified by Jesus in his conduct when con- 
 fronted with the Doctors of the Law, and questioned 
 by the Chief Priests. To the Jew — proud of his descent 
 from Abraham, and of his exclusive knowledge of the 
 one true God, and both hating and despising the rest 
 of mankind — the lessons taught by Jesus had a peculiar 
 appropriateness. To the monk in his cloister, on the 
 other hand, and to the Jesuit in his seminary, to all 
 those Christians, in fact, who deem it a mark of humil- 
 ity to yield a blind obedience to their spiritual guide, and 
 of self-denial to renounce all exercise of reason in matters 
 of faith, we may believe that Jesus would have enforced 
 the opposite virtues of independence and self-reliance. 
 
 The conclusions put forth in the present work have 
 not been reached without many struggles. It is no 
 slight matter to part with convictions that have been 
 cherished for years, and that are associated with the 
 memories of those whom we loved and honoured. And 
 sometimes the feeling will intrude that in sacrificing 
 
Xviii PREFACE. 
 
 the old beliefs there has been also a sacrifice of the 
 only assured ground of confidence amid the sorrows of 
 the present, and in anticipation of the unknown future. 
 But perhaps the belief in a God, who is both just and 
 merciful, who will render to all men according to the 
 deeds done in the bodj^, yet not without remembering 
 the feebleness and frailty of the beings he has made, 
 may rest with equal confidence upon the instincts of 
 our nature and our experiences of the course of his 
 dealings with the world, as upon a critical or evidential 
 process that shall satisfy us of the genuineness and 
 authority of the books of the New Testament, or upon 
 a slavish submission to the dogmas of a self-styled 
 infallible church. It is no uncommon occurrence that . 
 augmented knowledge produces a distrust of our early 
 opinions, or that in many things, often of great im- 
 portance, we are, after all, only able to reach a ^'per- 
 adventure." But this forms no reason for abandoning 
 our investigations. They who are most confident are 
 not always the most safe, and freedom from doubt is 
 perhaps more often the result of ignorance than of know- 
 ledge. Blind faith may err as well as " blind unbelief," 
 and God's purposes will ultimately be as plain to the 
 doubter as to the credulous — to the fearless enquirer, 
 as to him who has shunned all enquiry as sinful. But 
 still, though the reason may be convinced, the feelings 
 will sometimes refuse to be satisfied. They are dissevered 
 from their ancient roots, and it is not always possible for 
 them to put forth equally vigorous roots in the new soil. 
 The plan that I have pursued has necessarily involved 
 the consideration of the same subject under different 
 aspects, and has thus led to occasional repetitions, chiefly 
 
PKEFACE. XIX 
 
 in reference to the fourth Gospel and the writings of 
 Paul. On the whole, however, this inconvenience ap- 
 peared to be outweighed by the advantages resulting 
 from treating every subject as subordinate to the history 
 of Jesus, and of the development of the dogma with 
 regard to his nature. And this must also be my apo- 
 logy for the incomplete manner in which many of the 
 topics are discussed. My object has not been to write 
 a commentary. Many subjects that would well justify 
 a complete examination have been only partially in- 
 vestigated, and many that possess great interest have 
 been passed over altogether. Among these may be men- 
 tioned the similarity between many passages in the first 
 Gospel and in the writings of Paul ; the contrast be- 
 tween Paul's writings and the third Gospel and the 
 Acts of the Apostles ; and the relations of James, the 
 brother of Jesus, to Jesus himself during his lifetime 
 and to the Church afterwards. This last enquiry, if 
 followed up, might perhaps shew that, while the Church 
 was founded upon a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and 
 in his resurrection, its organization and its form of 
 government were due to James, the traditional fij-st 
 Bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
 Such a work as the present cannot be put forth with- 
 out exposing the writer to the charge of irreverence 
 and, perhaps, of profanity. In so far as such charges 
 may be intended to imply an absence of the recognition 
 of the proper deity of Jesus, and a conception of his 
 character as entirely human, it must be admitted that 
 they are well founded. For this is necessarily the view 
 taken in the work. But if they mean that its tone is 
 unsuited to the discussion of grave questions, which so 
 
XX PREFACE. 
 
 many persons view under an entirely different aspect, or 
 that it is calculated wantonly to wound the feelings of 
 those who do believe in the divinity of Jesus, they would 
 appear to be unwarranted ; at least, nothing has been in- 
 tentionally said that could have this effect. 'No doubt the 
 very attempt to treat the subject from a purely historical 
 point of view ; to judge of the acts and to estimate the 
 motives of Jesus as we should those of any other 
 character in history ; to subject the various accounts of 
 his life to the same species of criticism that would be 
 applied to purely secular literature; to accept or reject 
 statements, wherever found, without regard to the sup- 
 posed infallibility of the writers that relate them, must 
 shock many. But then those who would be so shocked 
 are precisely the persons who may be trusted not to 
 read the work. And those who do read it are bound to 
 remember that this mode of treatment is necessary, if any 
 historical certainty is to be hoped for ; and that the rever- 
 ence which forbids analysis and discrimination must ulti- 
 mately produce, not stability, but retrogression and decay. 
 I may add that the work was commenced in the be- 
 ginning of 1866, and was finished, with one or two 
 trifling exceptions, in September in the following year. 
 And I must bespeak indulgence for the errors that are 
 almost sure to be found when, as in the present case, 
 the author has not had an opportunity of correcting 
 his work while passing through the press. 
 
 March, 1869. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The present work is conceived from an entirely historical 
 point of view. Its object is to ascertain and depict the in- 
 cidents of the life of Jesus — the nature of his teaching, the 
 character he assumed, and the causes of the opposition he 
 encountered, and to which he ultimately fell a victim. It is 
 not intended, however, to prejudge, nor to exclude the theo- 
 logical view; to which it offers no necessary contradiction. 
 That view must ultimately rest upon other than historical 
 grounds ; and whatever else Jesus may have been, there is 
 no question that he was a man. He grew up from infancy 
 to manhood, living the ordinary life of a Jew of the poorer 
 class, and without, so far as appears, exciting any particular 
 attention. He was a man living with men and women ; eating 
 and sleeping ; moving from place to place ; sometimes welcome, 
 sometimes rejected; teaching lessons that bore a certain relation 
 to the opinions and feelings of his hearers ; loved, followed, 
 obeyed, hated, betrayed, and crucified. All this is admitted 
 by the most orthodox theology. There have been, and still 
 are, disputes whether Jesus was more than human ; but all 
 modern Christians assert that he was truly and emphatically 
 man. The attempt, therefore, to depict, in accurate outline, 
 his human history is not, in principle, at variance with the 
 theological idea, though its results may be expected to conflict 
 with some received opinions. 
 
 The life of Jesus cannot, any more than that of other men, 
 be understood apart from the circumstances of the age and 
 
 1 
 
2 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 country in whicli lie lived. If even it were admitted that 
 his mental and moral and spiritual development vs^as entirely 
 the result of his own essential nature — that it owed nothing 
 to the knowledge, and was uninfluenced by the opinions of his 
 contemporaries, which, from the historical point of view is 
 inadmissible, — still, in order to understand the effect he pro- 
 duced, the truths he taught, or that were received from his 
 teaching, the character that he assumed or was supposed to 
 possess, we must inform ourselves of the opinions of those to whom 
 he spoke. That which he taught, in fact, was what his hearers 
 rmderstood him to mean. And the character he assumed was 
 that which his disciples and contemporaries believed to be his. 
 
 This conclusion is quite independent of the question whether 
 his teaching might not include elements that escaped the 
 popular apprehension, and even the judgment of his disciples. 
 Such might have been the case, and men of the present 
 generation may be able to discover depths of meaning in 
 his recorded words of which no contemporary ever dreamed. 
 But even in that case, what he actually taught was what his 
 hearers or disciples received. And in order to understand 
 this it is necessary to know not merely his words, but, as far 
 possible, their opinions also ; since it is to the combined 
 operation of both that the actual result was due. This, too, 
 is necessary, not only in order that we may be able to realize 
 his character as it appeared to those among whom he lived, 
 but also that we may be able to judge fairly of their conduct 
 to him. To us, who look at his life and their ojoposition 
 through the medium of prepossessions necessarily arising from 
 the views as to his nature in the midst of which we have 
 grown up, and which were among the earliest lessons impressed 
 upon us in our childhood, the hatred he provoked and the 
 death he endured will appear altogether without excuse. But 
 to those whose practices he condemned, whose character he 
 assailed, whose teachings he freely contradicted, and whose 
 position he endangered, the case was necessarily different. 
 
INTRODUCTION. O 
 
 xind, in order to do justice to them, it is requisite that we 
 should be able to place ourselves in idea, to some extent at 
 least, in their position. It may be that our ultimate judgment 
 will be little affected by this. Any opinion, however, we may 
 form before we have attempted to understand the circumstances, 
 as they appeared to his opponents, is necessarily partial. Our 
 conclusions may be correct, but we have not qualified ourselves 
 to determine whether they are so or not. 
 
 Having thus endeavoured to enable ourselves to understand 
 the teaching and character of Jesus from the contemporary stand- 
 point, we have next to attempt to appreciate the materials for de- 
 termining what that teaching and character really were. These 
 materials are found almost exclusively in the New Testament, 
 and principally in the four Gospels. It is necessary therefore 
 to inquire into the origin of these writings, and to what extent 
 they may be accepted as reliable. They do not, at least ab- 
 solutely, agree among themselves. The pictures they give of 
 the lessons taught by Jesus, and of the events of his public 
 life, even if susceptible of reconciliation, are, at first sight, 
 inconsistent under some aspects. We cannot, therefore, upon 
 any h}q)othesis, escape the necessity of some critical enquiries, 
 for the purpose of determining which view we are to adopt — 
 whether one representation or another is to be taken as accurate, 
 or whether the various representations are to be combined, and 
 if so, in what manner. 
 
 And these enquiries, once commenced, must go further. "We 
 must ascertain, as far as possible, the claims of the various 
 narratives to be regarded as historically true under the two 
 aspects of external and internal evidence : what reason there 
 is for supposing that they were written by the persons whose 
 names are now attached to them, and how far the historians 
 themselves possess the marks of truthfulness. And this latter 
 enquiry does not necessarily or even presumably affect 
 the honesty of the writers. Many an honest man has given 
 a very untrue account of matters that passed under his own 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 observation, and still more of matters that lie knew only from 
 hearsay. Even in courts of justice, witli all the safeguards of 
 publicity and of cross-examination, and though testimony 
 is given under the sanction of an oath, and with the risk of 
 punishment if false, it is a rare event for any lengthened state- 
 ment to be made which any one experienced in such matters 
 is able to believe to be true throughout. It will be coloured 
 by the feelings of the witness, and bear the impress of his 
 character. It will be affected by his faculty of perception, by 
 his habits of observation, by his imagination ; and it will need 
 invariably some deduction or filling up to make it accord with 
 the fact ; and yet all the while the witness may intend to speak 
 the simple and entire truth, and may believe that he is doing 
 so. To assume, therefore, that a narrative may be inaccurate 
 does not imply that the narrator is untruthful. Even on the 
 supposition that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses, or 
 by those who directly reproduce the testimony of eye-witnesses, 
 we should not, consequently, be absolved from the task of 
 scrutinizing them for the purpose of endeavouring to construct 
 for ourselves, out of the materials they supply, a true con- 
 ception of the facts that suggested them. 
 
 In doing this it will be impossible to avoid the question of 
 miracles. The accounts given of the life of Jesus all assert 
 that he wrought miracles, properly so called — that he either 
 produced effects which no natural cause is able to produce, as 
 when he raised the dead ; or that he produced effects to which 
 natural causes are adequate, in the absence of those natural 
 causes, as when he made wine out of water ; — and the theo- 
 logical idea of Jesus is essentially that of a person who had 
 power over nature, and was able to suspend or dispense with 
 natural processes. It is obvious that our conclusions as to 
 the accuracy of the New Testament narratives may be very 
 different according to the opinions we entertain upon this 
 question, and that they may affect the view we ultimately take 
 of the nature of Jesus himself. 
 
INTRODUCTION. O 
 
 If we accept the ordinary view that it is entirely a matter 
 of testimony, that one or two persons may be believed when 
 they speak to some ordinary occurrence, and that more extra- 
 ordinary events may be believed upon the concurrent report 
 of a greater number, but that there is no event absolutely 
 incredible so that it may not be proved by an assignable amount 
 of evidence, — the question at first sight appears settled in 
 principle. And yet it is not so. The event may be proved, 
 and it may be of a nature utterly at variance with our 
 conceptions of what is possible in nature, — as inconceivable to 
 us as was the existence of Antipodes to a previous generation ; 
 and yet this would not entitle us to conclude its miraculous 
 character. Such a conclusion would be admissible only upon 
 the assumption that our knowledge is sufficiently complete to 
 enable us to determine what is and what is not within the 
 powers of nature ; an assumption few will venture to make. 
 For, even assuming that inconceivableness is a test of natural 
 impossibility, it must be, from its very character, a relative and 
 a shifting test ; sufficient no doubt for practical purposes, but 
 not having any absolute value. The very fact, indeed, of an 
 event previously inconceivable having occurred, would be at 
 once a proof that it was possible, and a presumption of the 
 very strongest kind that it was natural. The evidence, for 
 instance, to show that a dead body rose from the grave, became 
 animated, walked, ate, conversed, would only shew that in some, ^. 
 as yet, inexplicable mode, the forces that produce the phenomena 
 of life had resumed their influence over the organization ; and 
 this would furnish a new object for scientific enquiry. But 
 as all the forces that the resuscitated body would manifest in 
 the supposed case are natural, the fact of their manifestation, 
 even if established, could not shew anything beyond, or above 
 nature. Even, therefore, if we admit that the testimony of a 
 given number of witnesses could prove such a reanimation, 
 that would not afibrd any adequate ground for concluding it 
 to be miraculous. The facts which the testimony would estab- 
 
 iz 
 
b INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lish would be natural processes — volition, motion, mastication, 
 assimilation — and from these natural results it is impossible 
 to draw any legitimate inference to a cause that is not 
 natural. 
 
 In fact, however, every one practically holds that there is a 
 limit to the effect of evidence, and that there are incidents 
 which no amount of testimony would render credible. No 
 Protestant, probably, would be convinced that the miracle of 
 St. Denys had been repeated during the French Revolution — 
 that a Romish priest, after being guillotined, had picked up 
 his head and walked away with it. No Christian would believe 
 that true miracles were wrought at the shrines of Siva or 
 Vishnu, or that an Indian conjuror was able to cause rain by 
 his incantations, or to excite or to allay a storm. Any number 
 of eye-witnesses might be produced, to prove the alleged fact, 
 but the antecedent improbability of the occurrence would out- 
 weigh them all. It is not a question of testimony, but of 
 faith. Facts which conflict with received beliefs will be dis- 
 credited in spite of evidence, or rather they will be con- 
 temptuously dismissed as undeserving of enquiry ; and facts 
 which harmonize with these beliefs will be accepted almost 
 without examination, merely upon the ground of their general 
 reception. Those who admit miracles are guided in their 
 judgment of particular alleged miraculous events bj^ the 
 opinion they have formed of the character of God. It is 
 natural, according to their view of his nature, that he should 
 work or permit miracles for certain purposes, and that he 
 should not work or permit miracles for certain other purposes ; 
 and accordingly they admit those of the former and reject 
 those of the latter class. 
 
 It has been often said that to deny miracles is to deny to 
 God a power which is possessed by man — that of operating 
 upon nature and changing its course. Those who have em- 
 ployed this argument have not, however, apparently considered 
 its real character ; for it assumes a resemblance between God 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 and man in tlie essential feature of tlie case. It implies, 
 therefore, that God is a part of nature as man is, and changes 
 nature only by obeying its laws. Man can neither add to nor 
 diminish matter or force. All that he can do is to avail himself 
 of his knowledge of the properties of matter to change the 
 form of matter. His power, in fact, is well nigh limited to 
 this — that he can alter the position of substances in order that 
 certain results may be produced by their contiguity, or may 
 be prevented by their separation ; and in order to do this he 
 must have availed himself of the forces latent in the food he 
 has swallowed. These, by their transformation into nervous 
 and muscular force, render possible the manifestation of his 
 will, and the corresponding acts of the body by which his 
 volitions are accomplished ; and there is no difference in kind, 
 but only in degree,^ between the effects produced by man and 
 those produced by animals. The analogy, therefore, assumed 
 in the argument is one which those who have employed it 
 would be among the first to repudiate ; and if the analogy 
 really existed it would shew that the alleged miracles were 
 not really such, but only the results of a knowledge and power 
 beyond the present capacities of humanity. 
 
 These considerations, however, though they may, to those 
 who admit their force, authorize the rejection of the interpre- 
 tation which the N&w Testament writers have put upon the 
 facts they relate, do not absolve us from enquiring into the 
 truth of those facts. It is quite within the province of evidence 
 to prove, for instance, the crucifixion of Jesus, and that after 
 his crucifixion he was seen by his disciples, and ate and drank 
 with them. It will be, therefore, necessary in this and in other 
 cases to examine the nature of the evidence, and to estimate 
 its force, in order that we may be enabled to ascertain the 
 conclusions it appears to authorize ; and it is only in the event 
 of its proving, upon examination, sufl&cient to establish the 
 
 1 This limitation is, in fact, needless. The works of the coral animals exceed all 
 that man has done since the beo'innincf of his race. 
 
O . INTRODUCTION. 
 
 truth of the events, regarded as merely wonderful occurrences, 
 that the after question of their miraculous nature can arise. 
 
 Having thus endeavoured to place ourselves in a position to 
 draw reliable conclusions, we may attempt to construct a 
 narrative, meagre at the best, and necessarily, in part, con- 
 jectural, that may enable us, in some degree, to see Jesus as 
 he appeared to the eyes of his contemporaries; — to understand 
 how he gathered disciples, and with what hopes they were 
 animated. We may also endeavour to depict the true character 
 of his teaching — to what hopes he appealed, and what precepts 
 he inculcated ; and these investigations may enable us to 
 account for his ultimate execution as a criminal against E-ome. 
 We shall then attempt to explain how it was that the faith of 
 his disciples, instead of being destroyed by his death, became 
 only the more confirmed and exalted, and how they were led 
 to attach to his second coming the anticipations they had 
 originally expected to be realized during his life on earth. 
 And then we may finally essay to indicate the process by 
 which the Jesus of the three first Gospels was elevated in the 
 creed of the Church to an equality with the Father himself. 
 
 Such a work cannot but shock many prejudices, and wound 
 many sincere and liberal minds, — ^just in the same manner as 
 a critical history of the life of Mary, shewing her as the wife 
 of Joseph, and the mother of many children, and having no 
 honour whatever in the early legend, would shock the pre- 
 judices and wound the feelings of a devout Komanist.^ It is, 
 therefore, a question whether the circumstance that the result 
 of certain enquiries may shock men whom you respect and 
 admire, and with whom, under many asjjects, you cordially 
 
 ^ The author of " The Eclipse of Faith," who is a kind of orthodox Voltaii-e, on 
 a very reduced scale, is very indignant with Mr. F. W. Newman for iDublishing views 
 with regard to the character of Jesus, that he knows would shock sincere Christians. 
 But Mr. Henry Rogers, in his " Essays, reprinted fi'om the Edinbui-gh Review," is any- 
 thing but respectl'ul to the Virgin, and does not scruple to charge an eminent Romish 
 Saint (Ambrose) -^vith deliberately fabricating a miracle ; — without regarding the 
 pain he woidd cause to sincere Romanists. Mr. Rogers is, no doubt, right in this, 
 but that implies that Mr. Newman is right also. 
 
INTRODUCTION. » 
 
 sympatLiize, should induce you to refrain from publishing your 
 conclusions ; and it would seem that it should not — at least at 
 the present time. 
 
 The enquiries with which this work is concerned are familiar 
 now to thousands, and are discussed in a hundred forms, and 
 in the interest of every variety of creed and sect. Their 
 importance and interest are unquestionable ; and it is only 
 by means of a complete investigation of the subject, under 
 every aspect, that any conclusions can be established in which 
 the majority of thinkers can be expected to agree. The 
 doubts I entertain arise rather from my consciousness of the 
 necessary incompleteness of the work, and from my knowledge 
 that much it contains has been said before by others. As, 
 however, I have accepted no views without examination, but 
 have, in all cases, worked out my own conclusions for myself, 
 and as the results at which I have arrived differ in many 
 respects from any I have yet seen, I have determined to 
 publish them. Possibly the book may contain nothing that 
 has not been said before. It is, perhaps, too much to expect 
 to be able to write anything original upon a subject so ex- 
 hausted ; even then, however, it may not be without its use — 
 to have represented old ideas under a fresh aspect and in new 
 combinations. 
 
 Some apologists are accustomed to rely upon the wide diffusion 
 and the purifying and elevating influence of Christianity as 
 proofs of its divine origin and absolute truth. So far, how- 
 ever, as the former is concerned, it may be a question whether 
 the true inference is not the very reverse ; — whether the 
 wide prevalence of the belief does not rather suggest that 
 there must have been some alloy of human error mixed with 
 the truths it contains. It would not be easy to point out any 
 great movement in religion or politics that has not been in 
 part based upon a delusion, to which it has owed a portion 
 at least of its success. This will be admitted to be the case 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in religious movements by most or all Protestants, with two 
 exceptions : Christianity itself during the first few centuries, 
 and the particular sect or form of Christianity to which they 
 adhere. Brahminism, Budhism, Mahometanism, Ilomanism, the 
 Greek Church ; — the most widely spread forms of religion will 
 be allowed to owe their success, in part, no doubt, to the 
 elements of truth they contain, but mainly to the errors with 
 which the truth is intermingled ; and Romanists would, of 
 course, say the same with regard to Protestantism, — perhaps 
 with equal truth. 
 
 In all the great conquests of Christianity, too, at least since 
 the apostolic age, it would appear that its success has been 
 owing to the degree in which the aggressive faith assimilated, 
 or was capable of being combined with the superstitions of 
 the people who were converted ; and even now, among all 
 savage tribes, it is in vain that the purest and most orthodox 
 dogmas are taught according to the standard of the church to 
 which the missionary belongs. In spite of every efibrt the 
 ideas attempted to be conveyed suffer an inevitable process of 
 transmutation in the mind of the convert, and are, in fact, 
 capable of being received only by this means. The creed 
 actually learned is very different from that intended to be 
 taught. The missionarj'- may be seemingly successful. Whole 
 peoples may catch the impulse and hasten to be baptized. 
 They may dethrone their idols, and either destroy or purify 
 their temples. They may not only repeat the prescribed creed, 
 and profess their belief in whatever their teacher declares to 
 be true, but they may abandon many of their old licentious 
 or sanguinary practices, and outwardly conform to the Christian 
 standard of morals. And here and there one of an exceptional 
 organization may really experience the influence of the faith 
 he professes. With the vast majority, however, the change 
 is little more than superficial. The old superstitions remain, 
 though probably not in their original form ; they are blended 
 with the new ideas, and the result is an incongruous jumble, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 at once grotesque and unintelligible : all the while, however, 
 the outward appearance of conformity is maintained, and it 
 is only when some incident occurs to strip oiF the veil and to 
 disclose what it has concealed, that the mere spectator has any 
 opportunity of knowing the real state of the case.^ And genera- 
 tions must pass away before the old beliefs finally die out (if 
 they ever do so), and are replaced by the new faith. 
 
 We need not, however, go to savage nations in order to find 
 this result. Any one who has been in the habit of hearing 
 lay preachers among the aberrant forms of methodism, or has 
 been present at prayer meetings of uneducated or half- educated 
 men,^ must be aware how low and unworthy are their ideas of 
 God, how grotesque even are many of their views of Heaven 
 and Hell ; how, that is, their conception of Christianity supposed 
 to be derived from the Bible is, in fact, the result of their own 
 habits of thought and feeling : and a little reflection will 
 probablj^ shew that this process is inevitable ; for ideas and 
 feelings interpenetrate each other in the human mind as 
 certainly as gases in the receiver of the chemist. There are 
 few, indeed, who consider the subject but will admit, not merely 
 that error has been the invariable, if not the necessary ac- 
 companiment of religious truth, but also that the error which 
 a system contains, always excepting their own, has been one 
 of the causes of its success. 
 
 But then, if — waiving for the moment all consideration of the 
 persons by whom it was presented — we ask what there was in 
 the age that witnessed the first triumphs of Christianity, or in 
 the persons to whom it was proclaimed, that should have 
 enabled a pure and unmixed system of truth to spread and 
 establish itself, it is difiicult to see what answer can be given. 
 
 1 Instructive illustrations have recently occun'ed among the New Zealanders in the 
 Hau-hau superstition, and amongst the Chinese. The whole history of the conversion 
 of the northern nations is, however, a commentary upon the statement made in the 
 text. 
 
 * Or, we might say, has read some of the early sermons of Mr. Spurgeon in the 
 cheap religious reports. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 There is certainly nothing to suggest any peculiar superiority 
 in the early converts to the Christian faith over its modern 
 professors. " The first outburst of Pentecostal communism/' 
 as it has been called, was not altogether excellent, either in 
 itself or in its consequences ; and we can see that the faith of 
 the first generation of believers was, in part, founded upon 
 a mistake. One principal cause of the original progress of 
 Christianity was the expectation of the speedy second coming 
 of Jesus, and the resurrection of the departed, and transforma- 
 tion of the living saints at his appearance. It was as the 
 Messiah — the promised King, whose immediate advent should 
 inaugurate the kingdom of heaven upon earth, should exalt 
 his followers and punish his enemies — that Jesus was preached. 
 This was the good news proclaimed by the apostles ; but this, 
 in the sense in which it was received by the primitive converts, 
 was an unfounded expectation. Those who had embraced 
 Christianity in the belief that they should witness the trium- 
 phant return of the crucified Christ, — should with their bodily 
 organs hear the blast of the trumpet that proclaimed his 
 ^coming, and see the hosts of surrounding angels that gave 
 a more than earthly magnificence to his reappearing, — passed 
 away, one by one, without the fulfilment of their expectations. 
 Those whom Paul addressed did, in fact, " all sleep," and none 
 of them were "changed."^ Not one has remained alive to 
 witness the coming of the Lord, and to be caught up in the 
 air to meet him ; ^ and if, in this particular, the early converts 
 have been proved to be mistaken by the irresistible logic of 
 events, it is clear that no inference as to the absolute truth 
 of the historical basis of Christianity can be drawn from the 
 circumstance of its having been accepted by them.^ 
 
 1 1 Cor. XV., 51, 52. * 2 i Thcss. iv., 15-17. 
 
 ^ Modern orthodox commentators almost iiniformly deny that such was the ex- 
 pectation of the early Chuixh, or the teachinj;; of Paul ; and some even accuse of 
 dishonesty those who infer that it was. How I'ar this denial is warranted may be 
 judged of by anyone who will simply read the chapters to which we have rcfen-ed. No 
 one in the present day, excepting a person who, like Dr. Cuinming, fancies he believes 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 And with, regard to the influence of Christianity, it would 
 seem that there is much exaggeration in the views entertained 
 upon that subject, and even a misconception of its true stand- 
 point. The recent arguments upon this subject would, in fact, 
 have been scarcely intelligible to the early fathers and apologists, 
 and if they had understood they would have rejected them. 
 Their conception of Christianity was that it was a preparation 
 for a coming age, and also for another world, not an instrument 
 for the improvement of the present ; and this still continues 
 to be the prevalent opinion among those who consider them- 
 selves to be especially Christians, members of the body and 
 heirs of the kingdom of Christ. To be wise, or learned, or rich, 
 or peaceful, or happy, was for the individual believer rather a 
 snare and a peril than an advantage. The kingdom of Christ 
 was not of this world, and its results were not to be looked for 
 here, unless in so far as they were realized by faith. The 
 friendship of this world was enmity with God.^ If the Christian 
 found himself in harmony with circumstances, — if an uniform 
 course of steady and well-directed industry, and an unselfish 
 regard for the rights and feelings of others, had produced their 
 natural consequences of material well-being and social respect, 
 this proof of conformity to the world would at least raise a 
 presumption that he had, in some degree, deserved the enmity 
 
 in the near termination of the existing order of things, and wishes his readers to 
 believe so too, could use such expressions as those employed by Paul — •" Brethren, 
 we shaU not all die, but we shall aU be changed." . . " The dead shall be raised 
 first, incorruptible, and we (who therefore will not be among the dead) shall be 
 changed;" or, "then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up in the air, 
 etc." And the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, if genuine, only enforces the 
 continued obligation of all relative duties, since the coming of Jesus is not so im- 
 mediate as to dispense with theu- observance. Whatever might be the hindi-ance to 
 which Paul alluded, we may be quite sure it was some existing person or system, 
 known to his readers, and, therefore, presumably imkno-«Ti to us. This latter epistle, 
 too, is earlier than the first to the Corinthians, and cannot, therefore, quality the 
 deductions to be drawn from the language employed by Paul in the latter. 
 
 1 The author of the little work, " Is it possible to make the best of both "Worlds ?" 
 would have been regarded as a heretic then, as, probably, many regard him now. 
 The logical inference from the wi-iter's reasonings in that work excludes the theoloo-ical 
 doctrine of the fall ; for they shew that man and nature are so far in imison that by 
 obeying the laws of natui-e man will be virtuous and happy. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of God: at the lowest these temporal blessings might induce him 
 to rest satisfied with his present lot, might dim the eye of 
 faith and weaken the aspirations or even change the object of 
 hope. These moral virtues, too, were insignificant; — they might 
 be splendid sins. Without faith it was impossible to please 
 God, and with faith all other excellencies were, at least, im- 
 plicitly connected ; and considering the utter insignificance, on 
 the Christian scheme, of the present life, as compared with the 
 eternity that was to follow, no inconvenience or privation or 
 sufiering was worthy to be regarded for a moment, if its ex- 
 istence removed an obstacle to the fuller growth of the inward 
 and spiritual life. 
 
 To improve the moral or physical aspect of society was, 
 therefore, no part of the Christian scheme. That it should, 
 in fact, have done so was no subject of congratidation, but 
 rather to be feared and possibly to be regretted ; at any rate 
 it was an absolutely insignificant result : if one soul was lost 
 in consequence, what would the earthly happiness and virtue 
 of millions weigh if balanced against that eternal misery ; ^ 
 and if not, what did it matter at the best ? No more than 
 a single smile of an infant in its cradle, procured by some 
 momentary pleasure, as compared with the happiness or misery 
 of its whole future life. There may be a question whether this 
 was the teaching of Jesus, but there can be no question that 
 this is the spirit of orthodox Christianity. If, therefore, there 
 is any weight in the argument we are considering, it would 
 only shew that much of the fundamental Christian dogma is 
 erroneous. 
 
 If, too, we fairly estimate the actual efiects of Christianity, 
 a great deduction woidd have to be made from the opinions 
 
 1 This was written before I had seen Father Newman's "Apologia," or was aware 
 that he had put forth a somewhat analogous statement — that it was better the whole 
 world should perish in extremest agony, rather than that a single person should 
 commit one, seemingly, trifling sin. His statement, however, appears to me to be an 
 exaggeration of the teaching of the Church ; necessary, however, if the Inquisition 
 is to be vindicated. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 ordinarily held upon the subject. "We are apt to compare 
 modern Protestant England and America (for they are Pro- 
 testant writers who chiefly employ these arguments — Romanists 
 regard the true triumphs of the church to have been the sup- 
 pression of heresy) with some fancied picture of ancient society ; 
 and, when this has been done, we assume that all the features 
 in which we trace a superiority in the present as thus compared 
 with the past, are due to the Christian religion. We forget, 
 however, that these two countries are but a small part of 
 Christendom, and that, apart from the question whether the 
 comparison we have instituted is accurate, and whether all the 
 fancied improvements are real, there have been many other 
 influences at work to produce their present condition; and, 
 looking at Christian countries as a whole, is it qviite certain 
 that they have so much improved as the writings of apologists 
 would lead us to suppose ? Is Pome, with its surrounding 
 district, so much more distinguished for the virtues of patience, 
 temperance, toleration, and chastity, than the Rome of the 
 early days of the Republic ; are the conceptions the Romans 
 entertain of the beings to whom they pray so much more 
 elevated ; is their worship even so much less polytheistic than 
 that of their Pagan ancestors, — as that the result can be attri- 
 buted to nothing but the teaching of what, in its origin, at least, 
 was pure and unmixed truth ? And similar questions might be 
 asked with regard to Naples and Spain. If Russia, too, is 
 compared with China, or the modern Germans with their pre- 
 Christian ancestors, it may be a question, possibly, not whether 
 there is any superiority in the Christian over the heathen 
 country or age, but certainly whether that superiority neces- 
 sarily implies absolute truth in the fundamental Christian 
 doctrine. It may, no doubt, be said that these alleged or 
 admitted shortcomings are the result, not of Christianity, but 
 of its corruptions. But the question is, what have been the 
 actual practical efiects of Christianity ? And these are its 
 eflects — its own corruption among the rest. It has had 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 eighteen hundred years to work in, during wliich there have 
 been many lessons taught by experience, tending to shew how 
 evil may be averted and good promoted ; and at the end this 
 is its result, in these countries at least. 
 
 If, too, we analyze the influences to which our assumed 
 Protestant superiority is owing, we shall probably find that 
 their origin is due to ideas and principles outside of the 
 Christian creed, which, at their first introduction, were resisted 
 by all Christian teachers, as they continue to be by the majority. 
 In so far as Protestant countries shew any material and social 
 superiority to those which are Catholic, they exhibit the in- 
 fluence of secular principles as contradistinguished from 
 religious. They recognize, both in theory and in practice, 
 the importance and value of the present state of being, and 
 the power man possesses to control nature and to shape his 
 own destiny ; ^ and hence their whole political and social 
 organization is directed to secure to man that freedom of action 
 and thought which is necessary to enable him to develope his 
 own faculties, and to employ them to the best advantage, and 
 to protect him in the enjoyment of the fruits of his labours. 
 
 The Christian ideal is a kingdom in which the material shall 
 be subordinated to the spiritual, and in which all, having food 
 and raiment, shall be therewith content, devoting their highest 
 energies to the promotion of their religious well-being. The ideal 
 of England and of the United States is a government essentially 
 human and secular in its organization, instruments, and objects ; 
 dealing exclusively with the afiairs of this life, trusting solely 
 to temporal motions and sanctions, and leaving every one 
 to cultivate or neglect his spiritual nature as he may feel 
 disposed. It may be doubted whether the toleration of error 
 in religious matters is a Christian virtue, though it seems to 
 
 1 Even theologians in Protestant countries recognize this ; for while exalting in 
 words the necessity of supernatural assistance or support, they inculcate with equal 
 energy the necessity of human eflbrt. " Pray as though God did everything, and work 
 as though you did everything yourself," is a common formula. Obviously, there is 
 not much practical faith here in anything but the power of work. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 result from some parts, at least, of the teaching of Jesus, — for 
 the ultimate principle of toleration appears to be that truth 
 is either unknown or indifferent ; but there can be no doubt that 
 the distinctive characteristics of English and American progress 
 result from this toleration. Possibly the assertion so often 
 made by Protestant writers is true, that there is as much, or 
 more, of " vital godliness " in these two countries, as compared 
 with any Roman Catholic community, in spite, or it may be 
 in consequence, of their exclusively secular, political, organiza- 
 tion. Upon this we pronounce no opinion. It is outside of our 
 present purpose — which is only to shew that much of what 
 recent apologists have claimed as the results of Christianity 
 has, in truth, a very different source. 
 
 The same conclusions might be reached by other processes. 
 Our philosophy, our science, our spirit of investigation, our 
 feeling of personal independence, our self assertion, are, 
 if not unchristian, at least not derived from Christianity. 
 They may be forced into apparent harmony with an orthodox 
 creed, but they are independent of it. If they have in part 
 vindicated their claim to subsist side by side with the Christian 
 profession, it is only after many struggles, and in sj)ite of 
 strenuous opposition; and even now their spirit is denounced 
 by all but a few theologians, not only on account of their 
 consequences, but also on account of their essential character. 
 
 On the one hand, that men should claim to judge of the 
 moral nature of actions from their consequences, and thus 
 erect for themselves an independent standard of right and 
 wrong, was felt to be inconsistent with the Christian idea, that 
 the revealed will of God was the sole, or at least the ultimate, 
 test of good and evil. And, on the other hand, that man 
 should interpret for himself the phenomena by which he was 
 surrounded, should attempt to refer all events, some the most 
 apparently insoluble, to intelligible processes capable of being 
 explained and verified, was at variance with the Christian 
 conception of a God ruling all affairs according to his own 
 
 2 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 will, and employing storm and drought and famine and pesti- 
 lence as his instruments to punish the sinful and the rebellious ; 
 and it was at variance also with the Christian belief in the 
 power of prayer. Hence the progress of moral and political and 
 physical science, and the spirit in which their enquiries have 
 been prosecuted, to which no small portion of the alleged 
 superiority of modern society is owing, have always been re- 
 garded with hostility or distrust by the Christian Church ; 
 and hence, also, a large deduction must be made from the 
 alleged influence of Christianity, as an instrument of moral 
 elevation and social improvement. 
 
 That the influence of Christianity has, upon the whole, been 
 beneficial, having regard to the temporal well-being of Christian 
 countries, may be the case. That the influence of the principles 
 of Christian morality, with their associated religious ideas, has 
 been, and continues to be, beneficial in Great Britain and the 
 United States, is even probable ; but there are many matters to 
 be taken into consideration before either of these conclusions 
 can be regarded as established. If, in addition to religious 
 wars and persecutions, springing out of the claim of the various 
 churches and sects to possess that particular shade of truth, a 
 belief in which was necessary to salvation, we add the essen- 
 tially Christian persecution for witchcraft, and the sufierings 
 still occasioned by the spirit of proselytism, and by the social 
 persecutions that are necessarily connected with the doctrine of 
 exclusive salvation, — it will be seen that a more than ordinary 
 amount of earthly well-being, as the product of the Christian 
 faith, is required to balance these ; and, at any rate, the fruits 
 of Christianity have not been so uniformly, or absolutely, good 
 as to compel us to admit that the faith from which they sprung 
 was wholly free from error. 
 
 These remarks, it will be seen, are only directed to answer 
 one form of objection to such results as those which are arrived 
 at in the present work. They do not touch the convictions of 
 believers who look at Christianity in its purely religious aspect. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 19 
 
 To such, its value is not what it does for time, but what it pro- 
 cures for eternity — not that it removes sorrow or suffering here, 
 but that it promises blessedness hereafter. They, consequently, 
 may admit that it has done nothing to improve political insti- 
 tutions, to enlarge the sphere of knowledge, or to raise the 
 scale of physical well-being without, on that account, abating 
 one jot of their belief in its divine origin and perfect character. 
 "With such believers, however, there is, upon the ground of 
 historical investigation, no possibility of argument ; for the 
 effects upon which their belief is based are, by their very 
 nature, removed beyond enquiry and verification. They are 
 either states of feeling known in their reality only to the 
 individual believer — or the unseen and the future — capable of 
 being reaKzed only by the power of faith ; and as this faith 
 and those feelings are obviously compatible with many erroneous 
 conclusions in matters of fact, their reality would not, of itself, 
 imply the absolute certainty of the historical grounds upon 
 which they are based. They are independent of testimony, and 
 are, probably, most powerful in those who have never examined 
 the grounds of their belief. Neither therefore their existence, 
 nor the character of their effects, can furnish any presumption 
 against such an enquiry as we have instituted. 
 
 The essential portions of Christianity — the fatherhood of 
 God and the brotherhood of man — the necessity and the value 
 of the feeling of repentance and the assurance of pardon — a 
 faith in the unseen and eternal, in the ultimate triumph of 
 good and subjugation of evil, and of a retribution which shall 
 render to every man according to his deeds, have, no doubt, 
 a deep moral significance, and a truth not the less real, because 
 they are necessarily coloured by our imperfect apprehension, 
 and are incapable of being adequately presented in any meta- 
 physical formula, or circumscribed by any logical definition. 
 We are not, however, on this accoimt to conclude that the 
 human history with which their origin is popularly connected 
 is beyond the scope of our enquiries. There is always some- 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 thing in great events and in great characters that escapes our 
 analysis : probably there always will be ; but we do not, there- 
 fore, refrain from attempting to understand and to record them. 
 Such an attempt, with regard to the founder of Christianity, 
 will be found in the following pages. 
 
BOOK I. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 JUDAISM. 
 
 The position of the Jewish people at the commencement of 
 the public ministry of Jesus was not, to an ordinary observer, 
 noticeably distinguished from that of other nations subject to 
 the dominion of Rome. They were permitted to practice their 
 own forms of religious worship, and to preserve their civil and 
 social organization so far as this was compatible with the exer- 
 cise of Roman authority. That they bore the yoke im- 
 patiently, and that their religion was incapable of amalgam- 
 ating with that of their conquerors, were characteristics of 
 other races also, — among the rest, of the Britons. And judged 
 by its effects upon their morals, there was nothing in the 
 faith they professed to suggest any peculiar claims to respect. 
 Rigidly scrupulous in ceremonial observances, — guarding them- 
 selves against ceremonial pollution, — shrinking from intercourse 
 with men of another creed, lest they might become unclean by 
 the contact, — they were not distinguished by any striking re- 
 gard for justice or fair dealing. Rather, indeed, they appeared to 
 consider all other peoples as enemies whom it was lawful to spoil. 
 
 Such was the aspect under which they presented themselves 
 to the nations among which they dwelt. Some enquirers might 
 be aware that they possessed a sacred literature with consider- 
 able claims to antiquity, through which were scattered many 
 sublime thoughts and admirable precepts, based upon a strictly 
 
22 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 monotheistic creed. These men, however, were comparatively 
 few. Most of those who knew them were satisfied to judge 
 of the tree by its fruits ; and, seeing the bigotry, exclusive- 
 ness, and unscrupulousness of the people, pronounced the re- 
 ligion which led to such results to be " an execrable super- 
 stition." And if our opinions of the Jews, and of their faith, 
 were drawn entirely from the books of the New Testament, 
 instead of being tinged by impressions derived from the pre- 
 scriptive sacredness of those of the Old, and, in some degree 
 also by our intercourse with them, we should probably enter- 
 tain very similar feelings ; such as were, in fact, entertained 
 towards them during the whole of the Middle Ages. It was 
 however, of this peojale that Jesus was born ; — among them he 
 grew up; in their schools he was taught ; to them he preached; 
 and from them he selected his followers and friends. It was 
 a Jew, too, that first gave to Christianity the form that enabled 
 it to transcend the limits of Judaism, and to become the basis of 
 the religion of civilized humanity. Something, therefore, then 
 must have been in the character of the people, in their beKef 
 and their aspirations, that answered to the teaching of Jesus, 
 and with which it could harmonize — something out of which 
 it sprung or upon which it could be grafted. An enquiry into 
 the condition of the Jewish people, their practices, beliefs, and 
 opinions, is therefore a fitting, if not a necessary, preliminary 
 to any attempt to portray his life. 
 
 The origin of the Jews is involved in obscurity; and the 
 very circumstance that we possess, apparently, a clear and con- 
 nected narrative tracing their descent, without a break, from 
 the common ancestor of the human race, only renders the 
 obscurity the more impenetrable. That there were individuals 
 known in the oldest legends of Canaan, bearing the names of 
 Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, is possible — perhaps, on the 
 whole, probable. But the accounts we possess of their life are, 
 from the historical point of view, upon precisely the same level 
 as those of the siege of Thebes or of Troy. The story is 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 23 
 
 equally marvellous, and tlie authority equally unreliable. Even 
 if we were to assume, in defiance of evidence, tliat the book of 
 Genesis was originally composed by Moses, it would still be 
 written from 300 to 400 years after the event, and in another 
 land, and entirely uncorroborated. And if, as is more probable, 
 the earliest part was written about the time of Samuel, it would 
 stand in the same relation to the early history of Palestine and 
 of the Hebrews, as the Chronicle of Geoffrey of Monmouth to 
 the early history of England ; at the utmost, it could only be 
 accepted as the opinion that the writer entertained, or that he 
 was desirous that his readers should entertain as to their ancestors, 
 and especially as to the relation that had subsisted between them 
 and the national God.^ 
 
 Looking at the Jews themselves, it is difficult not to be struck 
 with their resemblance to the Egyptians of the monuments.^ 
 This permanence of physical resemblance implies a large 
 proportion of Egyptian ancestry, if not an original Egyptian 
 stock. It is impossible in this matter to rise above conjecture, 
 for the story professed to be cited from the Egyptian Annals, by 
 Manetho,^ is not a whit more entitled to credit than that which 
 is adopted by Josephus, or that which we find in the Pentateuch. 
 It is not impossible that the Hebrews* were originally an 
 Eg3'ptian colony, driven out in some civil war, or perhaps by 
 some foreign ruler; who fought their way into Canaan, and, 
 
 1 This does not, of course, affect the faith of those who regard every word of the 
 Bible as supernatui-ally inspired. To them, of course, it is indifferent whether the 
 book in question was written by Moses, or Samuel, or Ezra, since they believe it on 
 the fliith of the divine author and not of the human amanuensis. And it does not 
 touch the arguments of those who assume that Abraham committed the events of his 
 life to writing, and handed the work to Isaac, who continued the chi'onicle and handed 
 it to Jacob, etc. If any reasouer is allowed to make a sufficient number of arbiti-ary 
 assumptions, there are very few propositions that cannot be proved. It is enough to 
 say that none of the assumptions that have been made to shew, not the actual, but the 
 possible authenticity of the history, have any foundation in the work itself. 
 
 2 This is pointed out by Dr. Knox, in his " Eaces of Man." I had, however, 
 made the remark long before I had- read that work, or knew that any one else had 
 observed it. ^ Josephus against Apion. 
 
 * Hebrews = yonderers — i.e. persons from beyond the Jordan ; altogether un- 
 connected ■with the Eponym Eber. 
 
24 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 when they had raised themselves to power, sought to legitimate 
 their rule by connecting themselves with the traditions of 
 the land. It is, however, more consistent with the form that 
 the legend ultimately assumed, to suppose that a subject tribe, 
 long connected by intermarriage with its Egyptian rulers, had 
 revolted, and, unable to maintain its independence, had emigrated 
 in search of a new home, and had penetrated into Canaan — from 
 which, possibly, its ancestors had been derived. Whatever 
 hypothesis we may jDrefer, it is at least certain that the pre- 
 tensions of the Jews to pure Abrahamic descent is proved to be 
 unfounded by the surest of all ethnological tests — the unmis- 
 takable resemblance they continue to bear to the Egyptians of 
 the second empire. And it is very probable that the peculiari- 
 ties by which they were distinguished from the Semitic tribes, 
 among whom they established themselves, were attributable, in 
 a great degree, to this difference of origin. 
 
 We have no sufficient means of tracing the religious develop- 
 ment of the Hebrews ; — if only because it is impossible to 
 determine what changes were made in their sacred books in 
 their transmission to the times of Ezra,^ There are abundant 
 indications that, by the earliest writers, Jehovah was looked 
 upon as only one among many gods, more powerful, perhaps, 
 than any, but not the only god. The characteristic speech put 
 into the mouth of Jacob, in which he bargains to take Jehovah 
 for his God, and to give him the tenth of his substance in 
 return for protection to be afforded,^ is similar to that which 
 a modern Romanist, more devout than instructed, might address 
 to his favourite saint, and implies, unmistakably, that Jacob 
 was suj)posed to have a choice of gods, and that he conferred a 
 favour upon the one that he selected ; and the speech attributed 
 
 1 " The books of the Hebrew part of Scripture have all in some way been reduced 
 to a kind of uniformity, considerably veiling the difference of both stj'le and language 
 which must have existed at iirst — differences, for instance between the utterances of 
 Noah, Abraham, or Balaam, and those of Solomon, or Malachi," etc. — "The Bible 
 and its Interpreters," by W. J. Irons, D.D., cited in Colenso's Xatal Sermons. 
 
 * Gen. xxviii. ; 20 et scg. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 25 
 
 to Moses, when interceding with Jehovah for the people, " what 
 will the Egyptians say?"^ exhibits similar ideas with regard to 
 his nature and motives. Mixed with these and many similar 
 passages, however, are others implying worthier views of the 
 Godhead, such indeed as the most spiritual worshippers are 
 still able to employ ; but on that account obviously owing their 
 presence in the book to another and a later hand. It is impos- 
 sible that the same person, almost that two persons, of the same 
 age and circle, should entertain views of the deity so different 
 and even repugnant.^ And apart from the improbability that 
 any later writer should have interpolated in an existing sacred 
 narrative, passages expressing the lower ideas of the divine 
 nature, the context proves that these formed a part of the 
 original story. 
 
 The conduct, both of Samuel and David, proves, too, the 
 prevalence of low moral views with regard to the character of 
 the God they worshipped. Both are represented as offering 
 human sacrifices to him — the former in the case of Agag, and 
 the latter in that of the grandchildren of Saul. The inevitable 
 inference is, that the loftier and purer conceptions of the 
 character of Jehovah that are found in the earlier writings 
 are of comparatively recent insertion. 
 
 At a time when the art of writing was confined to a class, 
 and when the materials of which books were formed were frail, 
 like the papyrus rolls, frequent transcriptions might be required, 
 and there would be no security in the multiplicity of copies 
 against alterations or interpolations. The copyist who trans- 
 cribed a leaf to be inserted in the place of one that was worn 
 or broken would have no check to prevent him from altering or 
 adding a phrase. And the later reader, who was struck with 
 
 1 Exod. xxxii., 12. 
 
 ^ It is true that modern Christians accept all of these representations alike, and 
 even refuse to see any inconsistency in them. This is, however, due in part to the 
 influence of habit blinding them to the contradiction, and, in part, to their investmg 
 the lower views with associations derived from the more elevated. And neither of 
 these influences could apply to the original writer. 
 
26 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 anything repugnant to his altered sentiment, would be able, 
 without risk of detection, to obliterate or to insert a passage. 
 That there have been interpolations in the books of the Penta- 
 teuch, or that additions have been subsequently made to them, 
 is admitted by every one who has investigated the subject. It 
 is impossible to say how far these have extended ; and even if 
 this could be approximately determined, we should still be un- 
 able to discover the omissions or changes that have been made 
 for the purpose of rendering the work more nearly consistent 
 with the views of subsequent generations. After the time of 
 Nehemiah, when copies began to be required for the use of the 
 synagogues, their multiplication, and the greater sacredness 
 attached to the text, would prevent this, — and then mystical 
 or allegorical interj)retations would be employed for the same 
 purpose. So long, however, as only one or two copies existed 
 in the custody of the priests, the more easy and natural course 
 would be to correct the work itself, by altering or erasing a 
 phrase, or by inserting the requisite correction in any new copy, 
 or as a gloss in the margin of the old. 
 
 An illustration of this method may be found in the 
 Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This, while in 
 most particulars accurately representing the Hebrew text, as 
 we may suppose it to have been possessed by the translators, 
 uniformly translates the accounts of the various appearances of 
 Elohim or Jehovah in such a manner as to exclude the idea that 
 God could ever have been corporeally visible to man. This 
 change was certainly dictated by feelings of reverence. The 
 translators, from their residence in a Greek city, and their 
 familiarity with Greek modes of thought, had learned so to 
 conceive of God as to render the representations with which 
 their brethren in Palestine were still satisfied, inadequate or 
 derogatory. They accordingly modified their translation in 
 accordance with these views, and somewhat in the same way 
 analogous feelings on the part of previous transcribers might 
 have led them to make corresponding changes in their copies. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 27 
 
 Whatever opinion may be formed as to the date or author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch, it would seem certain that the laws 
 attributed to Moses were unknown or disregarded by the bulk 
 of the people. It is impossible, for instance, that if the Sabbath 
 of the fourth commandment had been recognized as a divine 
 institution from the time of the Exodus, no single hint of its 
 existence would have occurred in all the historical and pro- 
 phetical books of the Old Testament down to the time of Isaiah. 
 After the return from the Captivity, or rather after the estab- 
 lishment of the new order of things under Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 the observance of the Sabbath is a prominent subject. In their 
 business, in their worship, in their wars, in their intercourse 
 with the Gentiles, its influence is apparent. It is impossible 
 to read the history of the wars of the Jews in the Maccabees, 
 or in Josephus, or to refer to the notices of them in classical 
 writers, without seeing that the existence of this custom sensibly 
 afiected their policy and their relations with strangers. And 
 if it had existed in the same form and with the same assumed 
 sanction previous to the Captivity, it must have left some trace 
 upon the history; unless, indeed, any one is prepared to 
 assume a perpetual miracidous interposition to prevent any in- 
 terruption to business or war in consequence of its observance.^ 
 We may conclude, indeed, that the seventh day was a day of 
 sacrifice, and therefore a holiday, — a day of rest and recreation 
 among the Hebrews; but it is clear that it was not required to be 
 observed, nor was it observed, in fact, in the spirit of the fourth 
 commandment, during the period of the monarchy as it was 
 
 1 It has been said in answer to this that there is a like omission of any reference to 
 circiimcisiou, Tvhich, nevertheless, no one doubts was a Hebrew rite. This argument, 
 even if well founded in fact, would bear little weight, since circumcision was a rite 
 performed once for all, and not affecting in any way the incidents of public or private 
 business. But there is a very significant reference to it in a story whose grossness 
 vouches for the antiquity of the legend in which it is preserved. Da^•id, in order to 
 gain his wife, brings to Saul two hmidred foreskins of Philistines, who were, probably, 
 a non-Semitic, and certainly an uncu-cumcised race. The part of the body selected 
 instead of the ears or the head, distinguished them fi-om the circumcised Israelite, 
 and was a conclusive proof of the nationality of the victims. And there are other 
 incidental references to the custom. 
 
28 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 after the Captivity. Either, therefore, the Pentateuch did not 
 exist in its present form, or it was not known to the people, or 
 was not regarded as authoritative. 
 
 In the uncertainty that attends the subject, we can only say 
 that the writings of the prophets and psalmists from Joel to 
 Jeremiah, and from the times of David to those of the Captivity, 
 serve to shew a gradual disentangling of the more worthy views 
 of the Deity that ultimately prevailed from the narrow and 
 human conceptions by which they had been previously obscured. 
 Whether this was the restoration of a belief originally held, 
 but subsequently lost or corrupted, or the result of a process of 
 development in the revelation, or in individual minds, we need 
 not now enquire. Presumably it was the latter. But it never, 
 so far as we can judge, penetrated the popular mind, even in 
 the kingdom of Judah, and it had no appreciable existence in 
 the kingdom of Israel. The prophets, with some exceptions, 
 had to struggle, not only against the inertness of the people, 
 but against the open or tacit opposition of the priests. And at 
 the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the 
 prophetic office tj^pified by Jeremiah, in the depths of its despair 
 arising from this indifference or hostility, could hold out no 
 prospect of divine aid, even upon the terms of submission to 
 Jehovah, and could proffer no counsels but those of abasement 
 and submission. We may believe, however, that the exiles 
 transported to Babylon carried with them their sacred writings 
 — the Books of the Law, the Psalms, and the earlier prophets ; 
 and, possibl}^, the Chronicles, which at a later period formed the 
 sources from which the author of the four books of Kings drew 
 his materials. The captive Jews aj)pear to have preserved, to 
 some extent, their national unity, and to have been faithful to 
 their national God. And they cherished the hope of being 
 not merely restored to their native land, but of re-establishing 
 their kingdom in more than its early splendour. When, there- 
 fore, the growing power of Cyrus threatened the existence of 
 the Babylonian empire, they were prepared to welcome and, no 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 29 
 
 doubt, to assist the conqueror, in whom they hoped to find their 
 destined liberator and avenger. It is by no means improbable 
 that the favour with which they appear to have been regarded 
 by Cyrus was purchased by information supplied or services 
 rendered, during the siege of Babylon, or during the course of 
 the earKer campaigns. However this may be, one of his earliest 
 measures, after the conquest of Babylon, was the establishment 
 of a Jewish settlement at Jerusalem, under the government of 
 a scion of the House of David. 
 
 With what hopes the returning people entered upon their 
 journey we may gather from the glowing pages of the Deutero- 
 Isaiah. The offered restoration to their own land was to be the 
 first step in the onward progress of the nation. It was at once 
 a proof that Jehovah had not forgotten his people, and a pledge 
 that he woidd abundantly fulfil every hope that he had allowed 
 them to cherish. The nation had been guilty of the sin of 
 rebellion against its God ; — but the rebellion had terminated 
 and its sin had been forgiven. Jehovah had humbled the pride 
 of the oppressor ; he had overthrown those who trusted in their 
 idols to deliver them ; he had called Cyrus to the work, and had 
 gifted him with the needful power for its accomplishment. He 
 would smooth the way for the return of his people ; woidd turn 
 the hearts of their enemies, and would even remove the obstacles 
 to their journey presented by the mountain and the desert. And 
 when they were once more established in their native land; when 
 they had restored Jerusalem, and had rebuilt the Temple, and 
 had raised again the waste cities of Judah, — they were to enjoy 
 a long course of peaceful prosperity as the holy and righteous 
 worshippers of the God of Israel, receiving the willing and 
 unforced tribute of the surrounding nations. 
 
 It is, however, observable that through these sanguine an- 
 ticipations there runs an undertone of doubt and upbraiding. 
 We might conjecture that there was something in the character 
 and circumstances of the peoj)le that forbade even the prophet 
 himself to expect the complete fulfilment of his own predictions ; 
 
30 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 suo-o-esting the idea that there was a disposition among the 
 Jews, the majority of whom had been born in exile, rather to 
 clino- to the land of their birth than to risk the certain dis- 
 comfort and probable danger of the oiFered return : some 
 apparently urged the fate that had befallen their fathers — the 
 destruction of the holy city — the pollution of the Temple and 
 the desolation of the land — as a proof that Jehovah had cast off 
 his ancient people ; or, possibly, that he was powerless to protect 
 them. In opposition to the former of these objections, the 
 prophet argues that the sufferings of their fathers was only a 
 temporary punishment for forsaking the law of Jehovah, and 
 to the latter he sets forth Jehovah as the one true God — the 
 creator and ruler of all things, whose power no earthly potentate 
 can resist, and whose purposes are accomplished by the very 
 means employed to oppose them. These indications, however, 
 taken in connection with the fact that only a small portion of 
 the people did return to Judaea when the way was opened to 
 them by the decree of Cyrus, may be accepted as a proof that 
 the expectations to which we have referred prevailed only among 
 the minority, and that the greater number were satisfied to 
 worship Jehovah in peace in the land in which their lot was 
 cast. They might look with interest on the experiment. Many 
 mio-ht have a languid expectation that Jehovah would really 
 do all that was promised in his name, in which case they also 
 would be willing to return. But the majority appear to have 
 held themselves aloof from the movement. 
 
 Our notices of the condition of the returned exiles are scanty 
 in the extreme ; but we are able to gather that the first out- 
 burst of patriotic fervour was unable to support them against 
 the discouragements of their actual position. They reached 
 Jerusalem under the guidance of a descendant of David, but 
 none of the promised marvels greeted their arrival. They 
 encountered the ordinary difficulties of settlers in an unoccupied 
 coimtry, aggravated by the hostility of their neighbours, whose 
 offers of assistance they had repelled, and it would seem by a 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 31 
 
 change of policy in their Persian rulers.^ And all of these 
 difficulties were allowed to operate without calling forth any- 
 supernatural intervention. Their neighbours, whose friend- 
 ship they had scorned, repaid their rejection with hostility, and 
 were able to throw unexpected obstacles in the way of their 
 rebuilding the City and the Temple ; but the arm of Jehovah 
 was not made bare.^ They still had to eat their bread in the 
 sweat of their brow ; still the uncultured land produced the 
 brier and the thistle, and only by the slow and toilsome labours 
 of the husbandman was made to yield any usefid product. And 
 it would seem that in proportion as these results were realized, 
 so the first flush of hope and enthusiasm died out, and was 
 succeeded by practical if more mundane aspirations. The 
 necessity of providing for their own shelter and sustenance 
 absorbed their attention ; and even after these were provided 
 for, the majority appear to have been solicitous, rather for their 
 own comfort and aggrandizement, than for the rebuilding of 
 the Temple and the restoration of its worship. 
 
 Such, at least, is the impression we receive from the last 
 chapters of Isaiah, and from the writings of Haggai and 
 Zechariah. There is, however, great doubt how far we are 
 entitled to rely upon these representations. The pictures drawn 
 of contemporary society by an enthusiastic or ascetic preacher 
 require almost invariably to be accepted with considerable 
 deductions. To the mendicant monk, the common life of 
 humanity — with its unselfish domestic charities, its regulated 
 
 1 Possibly, consequent upon the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. Tlie act of 
 CjTUS in permitting the return may have been prompted by a feeling that it would 
 be desirable to have a fortified town manned by zealous allies on the Egyptian frontier; 
 and the subsequent difficulties may have arisen from the unwillingness of his successor 
 to permit the existence of a stronghold in that place, when the original motive for its 
 erection had ceased. 
 
 2 May it not be, however, that the first six verses in the Ixiii. chapter of Isaiah 
 refer to some signal success of a small body of Israelites against a party of enemies, 
 that was assumed by the prophet to have been such a manifestation F "We have no 
 hint of such an occuiTence elsewhere, but that scarcely forms an argument against 
 this view. This would not, however, affect the general accuracy of the picture drawn 
 in the text. 
 
32 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 toil, its innocent enjoyment, and its projects for the immediate 
 future — may appear only the exhibition of a godless indifference. 
 He may honestly denounce it as "earthly, sensual, and devilish." 
 Absorbed in the contemplation of the future world, and seeing 
 in the pursuits and affections of this life only so many induce- 
 ments and avenues to sin, if not so many actual sins, he may 
 depict society truly enough from his stand-point, though the 
 description would appear false or distorted to the ordinary 
 observer ; and something of this kind may have been the case 
 with the returned Israelites. Their offence may only have 
 been that they could not be persuaded to postpone the necessary 
 provision for the shelter and support of themselves and families 
 until after the Temple was rebuilt ; and that they made a less 
 liberal provision for the support of the Priests and Levites than 
 these last considered their due. 
 
 There is, however, a great obscurity hanging over the circum- 
 stances of the return from the Captivity, and over the history 
 of the settlers in Jerusalem down to the time of Nehemiah. 
 It would seem that the prolonged delay in the fulfilment of 
 their expectations, combined with their own conscious weakness, 
 and the neglect they experienced, had led them to regret their 
 first rejection of the proffered assistance of their neighbours, 
 and that the similarity of their circumstances had tended 
 gradually to promote an alliance between them. This was, 
 perhaps, natural. But what appears singular is that they 
 should be represented as having rebuilt the temple and restored 
 the worship of Jehovah, and yet as being ignorant of the pro- 
 hibition against marriages with the Ammonite and the Moabite, 
 and even of the command to observe the Sabbath day. The 
 account given in the book of Nehemiah implies that their laxity 
 of practice was the result of want of knowledge, and not of 
 wilful disobedience. As soon as the Law was read and ex- 
 pounded to them they were prepared to obey it, even, if we 
 may accept the book of Ezra as an authority, at the cost of 
 sacrificing the foreign wives, whom they had married in 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 33 
 
 ignorance of its prohibition. This account lends great pro- 
 bability to the later Jewish tradition, that the Law was not 
 known after the Captivity until promulgated by Ezra. We 
 need not, however, suppose with them that it was miraculously 
 revealed to him in its original form, nor with some modern 
 critics that the greater portion of its contents is due to him. 
 The more probable inference would be that he had collected 
 its various parts from his fellow-countrymen in the east, had 
 re-copied them, and had then set out for Jerusalem to teach 
 the lessons he had learned, and to reform the practices which, 
 in the absence of any authoritative rule, were then prevailing.^ 
 In this task he was successful, owing, in a great degree, to the 
 assistance he received from Nehemiah. And from this time 
 the Jews, for by that name are they henceforth known, appear 
 to have had a copy of the Law, much as we now possess it, and 
 to have endeavoured to regulate their policy and worship in 
 accordance with its requirements. 
 
 The most important element in the faith of the Jewish 
 people — that which gave consistency and strength to their 
 convictions — was, however, something outside the law. It 
 was the expectation of a Messiah — an anointed King — a 
 descendant of David — who would restore the ancient glories 
 of the kingdom of Israel upon a wider scale, and would not 
 only enable them to d«^ell in peace and prosperity within their 
 own land, but would give them dominion over their ancient 
 oppressors. This idea may be traced, at least in the germ, to 
 
 1 This, however, does not exclude many corrections and additions, or the restoration 
 from memory (or invention) of parts that were fragmentary or imperfect. Possibly 
 the reduction to "a kind of uniformity," of which Dr. Irons speaks, is due to him. 
 The recent investigations of Bishop Colenso would seem to shew that, at least, the 
 narrative portions of the Pentateuch had assumed substantially their present form 
 before the exile ; and, probably, this conclusion may, for the present, be regarded as 
 established. It is_, however, difficult not to suspect the influence of Persian ideas in 
 the second account of the Creation — the Garden and the Trees of Life and of Know- 
 ledge, and the Serpent. The emphatic references to Jerusalem may have been 
 prompted by a desire to counteract the tendency of the Jews to regard Babylon as 
 their home. A recent notice of Kalisch's work on Leviticus states that he attributes 
 a large portion of that work to a time after the Captivity. 
 
34 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 the earliest prophetical utterances, and it gradually assumed 
 greater elevation and distinctness as one prophet after another 
 took up the prediction, and applied it to the king in whose 
 reign he lived, or to his youthful heir. It was, apparently, 
 derived, in the first place, from the language of the Psalms, 
 composed in honour of David and of Solomon, at a time when 
 the kingdom of Israel appeared to be securely established, and 
 everything prognosticated a long continuance of peace and 
 prosperity. These hopes were, however, checked by the re- 
 verses that Solomon experienced in the last years of his reign, 
 and were crushed for the time by the successful revolt of the 
 ten tribes under Jeroboam. But the people of Judah never for- 
 got that they had been the ruling tribe during the only really 
 glorious period of the national history, and that Jerusalem was 
 at the same time the capital of the united kingdom, and its 
 temple the centre of the national worship. And some among 
 them always looked forward to the ultimate re-establishment 
 of (as they considered) their rightful dominion over all Israel. 
 And the prophets who shared these hopes endeavoured to avail 
 themselves of the national feeling to enforce the claims of 
 Jehovah, since only by his help could they be fulfilled; and 
 a pure and righteous worship was the only condition upon 
 which that help would be afforded. 
 
 Upon this condition, however, they promised not only the 
 re-establishment of the sovereignty of David, in the person of 
 his descendants, over the whole people of Israel, but that it 
 should include all the various nations with whom the Israelites 
 had been brought into contact, and at whose hands they had 
 suffered. In this renovated kingdom the enmity still subsisting 
 between Ephraim and Judah should be healed. Ephraim should 
 not envy Judah, and Judah should not vex Ephraim ; but they 
 should rule over the Philistine on the west, and should spoil 
 those of the east : Edom and Moab and Ammon should be 
 subject to them, and Egypt and Assyria should be rendered 
 powerless to harm them. And beside this, all injustice and 
 
THE JESrS OF HISTORY. 35 
 
 oppression sliould terminate, and all hurtful things should lose 
 their power to injure, and the knowledge of Jehovah should be 
 diffused over the earth, and all Gentiles should come, attracted 
 by the spectacle of prosperity and righteousness.^ Such, with 
 occasional variations, is the general idea of the Messianic king- 
 dom that we derive from the writers who lived before the 
 Captivity. The character of the predictions, so far as other 
 nations are concerned, — those, at least, who had injured the 
 Israelites, — is, for the most part, vindictive and threatening; 
 yet, even here, there is sometimes a recollection that these 
 nations also are children of Jehovah, and they are permitted 
 to share in the promised blessings.^ 
 
 We have, however, no reason to suppose that previous to the 
 Captivity the views of the prophets were shared by the people. 
 It is difficult to escape from this illusion, but a careful examina- 
 tion shews that the men who uttered these prophecies stood, 
 for the most part, aloof from the nation. The populace had 
 no sympathy with them ; they were scarcely aware of their 
 predictions, and if they had known them would have repudiated 
 the conditions with which they were connected, since they 
 resisted all the attempts that were made to reform their worship 
 in accordance with the views of the prophets. And — with the 
 exception of Hezekiah, who called Isaiah to his councils, and 
 of Josiah, who appears in the early part of his reign to have 
 acted under prophetical advice — the rvders seem to have beKeved 
 in them as little as the people. They, in fact, were too 
 much occupied in maintaining their position against the rival 
 monarchy of Israel, aided occasionally by that of Syria, to 
 listen to men who would have had them rely entirely upon 
 supernatural aid; and they so far shared the feelings of the 
 people as to refuse to sanction those innovations in the popular 
 worship which the prophets sought to introduce. And if, for 
 a moment, during the reign of Josiah the pure worship of 
 Jehovah was established, — and it appeared as though the half- 
 1 Isaiah xi. 2 Isaiah xix., 21 et seq. 
 
36 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 deserted realm of Israel miglit be incorporated in tlie kingdom 
 of Judah, — this hope was destroyed almost as soon as it arose, 
 not less by the reaction necessarily provoked by the bloody 
 persecutions of Josiah/ than by the impossibility that his 
 kingdom should maintain its independence in presence of the 
 rival monarchies of Egjrpt and Babylon. We see, however, 
 in the prophecies of Jeremiah that the old hopes still subsisted, 
 in spite of reiterated failures. The line of David and the 
 services of the Temple were to be perpetual,^ A shoot from 
 the stem of David should be raised up who would rule in 
 justice and in peace over the restored children of Israel and 
 Judah, whom Jehovah would soon call from all the countries 
 to which he had driven them ; for the time was at hand in 
 which the promises of the Lord were to be fulfilled ; ^ and 
 these hopes appear to have continued even to the time of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity of Judah. 
 
 During the period of the exile, a portion of the captives 
 continued to maintain their faith in these predictions, which 
 were supposed at first to be about to receive their fulfilment in 
 the return under Zerubbabel. At this period they found their 
 loftiest and most spiritual expression in the evangelical utter- 
 ances of the Deutero-Isaiah, and they inspired the prophecies 
 of Haggai and Zachariah. As, however, time wore on, and 
 there was no sign of their fulfilment, and the Jews gradually 
 realized the true nature of their position, the faith they had 
 once excited died out, and the feelings they had prompted 
 slowly faded away. There is not a trace of their existence 
 in the pages of Ezra and Nehemiah ; and Malachi, who pro- 
 bably wrote before their time, no longer anticipates the re- 
 storation of the kingdom to Israel, but only the religious 
 
 1 It can excite no surprise that the spirit of persecution for conscience sake should 
 he so prevalent in Protestant countries, when Josiah, who sacrificed the priests of 
 Baal upon their own altars, for no offence but their erroneous religious practices, is 
 always presented to yoiing people as a model of early piety, and emphatically as " the 
 good king Josiah." 
 
 2 Jerem. xxxiii., 17, 18. * Jerem. xxiii., 5-8; xxxiii., 14 et seq. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 37 
 
 reform of the people and the purification of the worship of 
 Jehovah. 
 
 Possibly, indeed, the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah were 
 in substance a reaction of the priestly against the prophetical 
 party; or, perhaps, they might be more accurately described 
 as the occupation by the priestly party of a field that had been 
 left vacant in consequence of the entire collapse of the pro- 
 phetical spirit, resulting from the proved failure of the hopes 
 by which it had been animated. It was impossible that the 
 faith in Jehovah as the restorer of Israel could maintain itself 
 in its original fervour in spite of the wearing delay in the 
 fulfilment of his declared purpose, and, as it would seem, of its 
 ultimate relinquishment. A few enthusiasts might preserve 
 their faith, and (like our modem interpreters of prophecy) 
 might be able to suggest new views of the meaning of the 
 predictions, as events demonstrated the falsity of the old. But 
 the majority would feel only that they had been fed with false 
 hopes, and would refuse to believe in any new interpretation ; 
 and out of this would arise a feeling of listlessness and in- 
 difierence, and of impatience of restraint. It may even be 
 true that the returned Jews had not carried with them any 
 copy of the book of the law, for the prophets in general 
 attached little importance to its formal precepts, and, indeed, 
 disparaged them in comparison with justice and spiritual 
 holiness ; and in the enthusiasm excited by the belief that 
 Jehovah was about to establish his visible reign among them 
 in the person of his anointed, it might be supposed that these 
 ritual observances would be no longer required. Whatever 
 might have been their knowledge, it would appear that the 
 distinctive practices that had divided them from the other 
 people of the land were gradually becoming obsolete, and 
 that they scarcely cared to preserve their separate existence. 
 Intelligence of this state of things reached their brethren in 
 Persia, who, in their exile, seem always to have looked to 
 Jerusalem as the holy city, and to Judaea as their country ; 
 
38 THE JESTJS OF HISTORY. 
 
 and energetic measures were at once taken to reform this laxity 
 of practice, and to establish the Levitical law in Jerusalem, in 
 all or more than all its original strictness ; measures which, 
 o^Ting to the high position of I^ehemiah, and the zeal and 
 ability of Ezra, were completely and permanently successful. 
 
 In the period that elapsed between the government of 
 Nehemiah and the fall of the Persian empire nothing occurred 
 to re-awaken the Messianic hopes. The Jews appear to have 
 lived in peace under their foreign rulers, who, monotheists^ 
 and iconoclasts themselves, regarded them with favour, and 
 made no attempt to interfere with their faith or worship. 
 Nor was their position sensibly altered by the conquest of 
 Alexander during his lifetime. When, however, his death left 
 the empire he had founded to be shared among his generals, 
 as the skill of the competitor and the fortune of the sword 
 might determine, Judaea — placed between the kingdoms of the 
 Ptolemies and the Seleucides, claimed as an appanage by each, 
 and alternately the battle ground upon which their armies en- 
 countered, and the road along which they marched to conflict — 
 was ultimately reduced to a condition of misery, that probably 
 equalled anything they had before suffered at the hand of 
 Assyrian or Babylonian. With this present suffering came 
 also a revival of their anticipations of future prosperity and 
 triumph, through the help of Jehovah, And when the 
 attempts of Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress the worship of 
 the Lord, and to substitute that of Olympian Jove had pro- 
 voked a rebellion, those anticipations found their practical 
 expressions in the efforts of the Maccabees, and their literary 
 expressions in the book of Daniel, — a work which profoundly 
 modified the nature of the Messianic ideas. The struggle 
 upon which the nation entered, however, though it seemed 
 
 ' It is said that they were dualists — but they believed in the ultimate triumph of 
 the good principle, and they certainly did not attribute as much power to Ahremain 
 as was attributed by Scotch divines of the seventeenth centui-y to Satan ; and these 
 latter would have been surprised to hear theii- monotheism doubted. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 39 
 
 for the time the national religion, did not establish national 
 independence; and, after a few years of turbulent freedom, 
 Judaea fell, with the rest of the kingdom of the Seleucidae, 
 imder the power of Rome. Its separate existence, however, 
 continued, first as a subject kingdom under Herod and his 
 successors, and afterwards as a province under Roman go- 
 vernors imtil the final destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. 
 
 The book of Daniel can scarcely be called Messianic. No 
 doubt the word Messiah or Anointed occiu's twice in two con- 
 secutive verses, and there is once a reference to anointing some 
 holj^ thing or place — probably the Temple ; ^ but the word 
 is, in both instances, so employed as to exclude its application 
 to the predicted ruler over Israel. It is no longer the shoot 
 or branch of the stem of David that is to rule. There is not 
 even to be a king. These ideas had lost their appropriateness 
 during the centuries of subjection that had elapsed siace the 
 Captivity, or, perhaps the defection of nearly all of the higher 
 ranks — priests and nobles — from the cause of Jehovah ^ had 
 rendered the idea of the restoration of the kingdom of David, 
 with its inevitable adjuncts, repugnant to the feelings of the 
 prophet. His imagery in this respect, however, is inconsistent 
 and varying. Now it is the Ancient of Days that will sit in 
 judgment, and will slay the beast and give his body to the 
 flames (Dan. vii., 9 et seq.) Now it is one like to the Son of 
 Man, coming in the clouds of heaven, who is brought near to 
 the Ancient of Days, and to whom is given dominion and glory 
 and a kingdom — a kingdom that is everlasting, and a dominion 
 that rules over all men (13). Then the holy ones of the most 
 High ( = the Jewish people) shall take the kingdom and possess 
 it for ever (18) ; then, again, the Ancient of Days comes, and 
 the judgment is given to the holy ones, and they possess the 
 
 1 Dan. ix., 24, 25, 26. Davidson Introd. to Old Test., Vol. iii., 213 et seq. 
 
 2 Eeminding one of Spain during the invasion of Napoleon — 
 
 " Where all was noble save nobility, 
 Xone kissed the tn-ant's feet but fallen chivalrv." 
 
40 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 kingdom (22) ; and, again, the kingdom shall be given to the 
 holy people of the most High (27) ; and then, again, instead of 
 the Ancient of Days, or one like to the Son of Man, or the holy 
 people of the most High, it is Michael, the great prince, that 
 standeth for the Jewish nation, who shall stand up, and they 
 shall be delivered, those at least who shall be found written in 
 the book. And more than this, many that sleep in the dust 
 of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
 shame and everlasting contempt (xii., 1, 2). The unfixed 
 character of the imagery indicates the novelty of the ideas 
 which had not yet been clothed in any definite form. The 
 prevailing sentiment, however, is, that the people of Israel, 
 who then, deserted by their natural leaders, were battling for 
 the cause of Jehovah, should rule either under God himself 
 or under some supernatural messenger, whether one like to 
 the Son of Man, or Michael, the prince or angel of the Jews. 
 
 These, however, are ideas of which there is scarcely a trace 
 in the other books of the Old Testament : only in those of 
 the New do we perceive their influence ; and in these latter 
 we find that a belief was entertained by the Jews (except the 
 Sadducees) in one like to the Son of Man, who is to come in the 
 clouds of heaven, and in the resurrection, and in the judgment, — 
 blended, however, with the Messianic imagery of the prophets. 
 
 The distinctive feature in the organization of the Jews at the 
 time of the birth of Jesus was, as it has continued to be since, 
 the Synagogue. It is true that the Temple still subsisted — that 
 the daily sacrifice was still oflfered, and that at intervals, depend- 
 ent, in some degree, upon their own proximity to Jerusalem, 
 the Jews went up to worship according to the law. But ex- 
 cepting for those who dwelt in the holy city, and, perhaps, 
 even for these also, the influence of the Temple was insignifi- 
 cant in comparison with that of the Synagogue. In the latter, 
 every week, upon the Sabbath day, they assembled to hear the 
 law and the prophets read and expounded. Their social rank 
 was connected with, or was indicated by, their position in its 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 41 
 
 services. The performance of tlie innumerable observances tbat 
 surrounded their daily life, and entered into the commonest 
 actions, was connected with this establishment, and watched 
 over by its office-bearers. It was thus the centre, both of their 
 religious and social life, if we may employ such a phraseology. 
 The distinction, however, would at the time have been without 
 meaning to the Jews, for with them every social act and relation 
 had a religious aspect and character. It subsisted, too, not 
 only in Palestine, but had been carried by the Jews into every 
 country and place in which they had established themselves; 
 and, independent of the Temple, it has survived its ruin. 
 
 This involved two consequences — a comparative disregard of 
 the Temple worship, and a special importance attached to the 
 letter of the law. Undoubtedly those who established the 
 synagogue did not anticipate the former of these results. It 
 was, however, inevitable that the synagogue, with its weekly 
 meetings and the influence it exercised over their daily life, 
 should gradually acquire a preponderating importance in the 
 minds of the people over the distant or infrequent celebrations 
 of the Temple ; and as the principal part of its service con- 
 sisted in the reading and interpretation of the law, and in 
 exhortations founded upon it, the books thus read necessarily 
 acquired a peculiar sacredness, and came to be regarded as the 
 sole and infallible guide in all matters. 
 
 The books of the law were, however, written in view of a 
 difierent state of society ; and, in order to allow of their ap- 
 plication to the actual circumstances of the people, some means 
 of adaptation were necessary. It was impossible that the Jews 
 should have passed through all their various experiences, from 
 the times of Ezra to those of Herod, without having acquired 
 many new ideas, and having profoundly modified those that 
 they had retained. They had been in contact with their 
 Persian rulers up to the time of Alexander,^ and afterwards 
 
 1 The influence of Persian ideas is especially visible in the eschatology of the 
 book of Daniel. 
 
42 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 they had been exposed to the influence of Greek modes of 
 thought ; and however resolute they might be in intention to 
 repel all intrusion of new ideas from either source, it was 
 impossible they could wholly escape them, any more than 
 the modern theological opponents of science can avoid being 
 affected by the indirect results of the studies they condemn.^ 
 And notwithstanding the hostility with which Greek literature 
 and philosophy were regarded, at any rate after the reign of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, the religious ideas of the Jews appear 
 to have been, to some extent, tinged by them ; probably with- 
 out their being conscious of the efiect, or of the source from 
 which the influence proceeded. 
 
 This, however, is a question we need not discuss. To what- 
 ever extent Greek ideas might have penetrated into the schools 
 of Jerusalem, or been favoured by the ruling classes, there is no 
 reason to believe that they exercised any perceptible influence 
 upon the class to which Jesus belonged, and to which he 
 preached. Among them the changed aspect of the law related 
 rather to practical matters, and to the methods of interpretation 
 employed by the Scribes to adapt it to the requirements of their 
 daily life. In order to do tliis, it was the custom to have re- 
 course to strained methods of construction ; and when these 
 failed, an ingenious system of casuistry was devised, to teach 
 in what manner inconvenient or impracticable obligations might 
 be evaded. And, as always hajDpens, when attention is con- 
 centrated upon the letter of the Scripture — as though that were 
 essentially sacred — far more importance was attached to minute 
 formal matters than to the broad principles upon which it was 
 based. Whenever the alternative lay between violating the 
 letter and disregarding the spirit of the law, the question was 
 
 1 I have, however, heard of a German Lutheran minister, in one of the Colonies, 
 who, as late as 1859, told his congregation that he helieved the sun revolved round 
 the earth, and that he should teach them so, giving as his reason, that this appeared 
 to be the plain doctrine of the Bible, and that if he gave way to philosophers upon 
 this point, he did not know where he could stop. But he must have been a rare 
 exception, and, probably, was not consistent throughout. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 43 
 
 sure to be decided in favour of literal observance ; and, coupled 
 witb this, was a strange laxity that permitted its plainest 
 precepts, when found burdensome, to be evaded upon certain 
 definite technical excuses.^ An illustration of the importance 
 attached to the letter may be found in the tithes of mint, and 
 anise, and cummin ; and of the evasions, in the permitted 
 excuse for not contributing to the support of a parent on the 
 ground that the requisite means were " corban " — dedicated 
 to a religious use. 
 
 The rules for the interpretation and application of the law 
 formed a body of doctrines taught in the schools of the doctors 
 of the law. With them — in the New Testament narratives 
 called Scribes and Lawyers — were associated the Pharisees. 
 These two formed the guides of the people, self- constituted, 
 but almost universally accepted. They were looked up to for 
 advice and direction in circumstances of difiiculty, and their 
 sincerity and earnestness justified, under certain aspects, the 
 confidence reposed in them. They were faithful to the national 
 traditions ; favouring, if they did not join, all the movements 
 to resist threatened interference with the national faith. They 
 were found in every part of the land, in Galilee as well as in 
 Judaea, and they were especially identified with the services 
 of the synagogue. They belonged to the people, in whose 
 feelings they sympathized, and whose hopes they shared ; 
 occupying in this respect a somewhat similar position to that 
 of a parish priest in Ireland, at the close of the last century. 
 The Pharisees, especially, appear to have affected great external 
 sanctity, and to have been ostentatious in the performance of 
 their religious duties, and in their precautions against cere- 
 
 ^ A person curious in tracing analogies might find some striking points of resem- 
 blance to the picture thus sketched in the English law of fifty years ago, when the 
 common law made the enforcement of the rights of the party dependent upon matters 
 of form, and the system of equity, inti-oduced professedly to remedy the evils occasioned 
 by this strictness, was as rigidly technical, and practically more unjust. Much, but not 
 enough, has been done to reform these systems, principally because the administration 
 of the new laws has, of necessity, been entrusted to men trained imdcr the old. 
 
44 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 menial impurity; and, probably, they prided themselves upon 
 their minute and scrupulous fulfilment of every legal require- 
 ment, and regarded those who fell short in this respect with 
 something of the same feeling of inward superiority that a 
 celibate priest might feel when contrasting himself with a 
 married clergyman. But, however this might be, their own 
 unswerving adherence to the rules they imposed secured for 
 them the respect and confidence of the people, who saw in 
 their practices a sincere, if possibly an overstrained, anxiety to 
 fulfil everything that the law might be supposed to require. 
 
 An amusing sketch of the various classes into which they 
 were divided, and of the pecidiarities by which each class was 
 distinguished, has been drawn by M. Renan, in his Life of 
 Jesus. The practices, however, that are seen only in a ludi- 
 crous light by a Parisian of the nineteenth century, appeared, 
 we may be sure, under a very different aspect to the con- 
 temporaries of Jesus. There is, in fact, nothing in which the 
 influence of association is more powerful in excluding ludicrous 
 or derogatory ideas than in practices supposed to be connected 
 with religion. We laugh at the Puritans of the Common- 
 wealth ; and it must be confessed that their uncouth phrase- 
 ology, afiected snuffle, and peculiar garb, furnish much matter 
 for laughter. They, however, were earnest men, fearing God, 
 and when they believed that they were doing His work, fearing 
 little else ; and so long, at least, as they were oppressed, they 
 were regarded with respect and sympathy by the greater part 
 of the nation. The Dean of Canterbury, in a letter from 
 Pome, describes a scene, ridiculous enough from a Protestant 
 point of view, in which a number of grave men and respect- 
 able ladies reverently kissed the foot of a doll ; and yet we 
 may be sure that the sentiments of the officiating priests and 
 the worshipping people in this scene were those of devotion and 
 reverence. It is not necessary to multiply instances. These 
 may suffice to shew that the practices of the Pharisees might 
 not only be regarded as exhibiting a zeal for Grod and a re- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 45 
 
 verence for his law, but that they would place at a disadvantage 
 any one who assumed the character of a public teacher without 
 exhibiting these or analogous proofs of his sincerity and fitness. 
 Under these various influences the Jews were led to regard 
 themselves as especially a holy people ; or rather, as the holy 
 people of the earth. They appropriated to themselves all the 
 epithets of the prophet and the psalmist. They were the holy 
 ones of the most High — the chosen of Jehovah, — a royal priest- 
 hood, a peculiar people. As such they had been selected by 
 the God of the whole earth as the first recipients of his bounty, 
 and they were to be the instruments by which it might be in 
 a degree poured out upon the whole earth. They were Jacob, 
 whom he had loved — Israel, whom he had chosen — the children 
 of Abraham, his friend, with whom he had condescended to treat 
 as an equal. They were heirs of the promises — children of 
 the covenant that God had made with their fathers. What, if 
 for a little while, — long though it had seemed to their waiting 
 hearts, — Jehovah had hidden his face from them, they were 
 still the only people to whom he had revealed himself — the one 
 nation that he had covenanted to bless. Wherever they went 
 they carried with them the conviction of this unapproachable 
 superiority. Other nations might be more prosperous, or 
 powerful, or wealthy, or learned, or warlike, — they were the 
 people of God. Other nations might enjoy a transient super- 
 iority ; but when the predetermined time should arrive they 
 would at once and for ever assume the pre-eminence that of 
 right belonged to them. Often must they have applied to 
 themselves the language of the prophet — despised, rejected, 
 afilicted. Without beauty or comeliness in the sight of the 
 heathen ; bearing the burthen of other nations, and suffering 
 because of the offences of the Gentiles ; — they looked forward 
 to the time when kings should shut their mouths before them ; 
 when they should divide a portion with the great, and the spoil 
 with the strong ; when the pleasure of Jehovah should be ful- 
 filled in their restoration ; and when, though mountains should 
 
46 THE JESIJS OF HISTORY. 
 
 depart and the hills be removed, his kindness should abide with 
 them, and the covenant of his peace should never be broken. 
 
 "We have been so long accustomed to give to these and similar 
 passages an exclusively Christian interpretation that we are apt 
 to forget they were originally addressed to the Jews, who, 
 until enlightened by experience, were justified in applying 
 them to their own circumstances. The common Christian view 
 may be well founded ; but certainly no one before the death of 
 Jesus would have thought of applying the prophecies to the 
 Gentiles as the spiritual Israel — the very persons at whose 
 hands the Jews, the Israel after the flesh, had for centuries 
 sustained so many and such grievous wrongs. It could not 
 then have occurred to any one that the coming of the promised 
 Messiah — the Son of David, the King of Zion — the Saviour 
 of Israel, was to be to the Jews themselves the commencement 
 of a period of degradation and suffering, longer and deeper 
 than any they had previously undergone. The Romans were 
 more remorseless conquerors than the Babylonians, and the 
 Christians have been harder task-masters than the Egyptians; 
 for while in their ancient captivity they are represented as 
 having increased in an unprecedented ratio, it is a question 
 whether, in the old world, there are at the present time as 
 many Jews to the west of the Tigris as there were at the time 
 of the first siege of Jerusalem. And even if we could now be 
 quite certain that this was the true meaning of the prophets, 
 the Jews would have been then justified in understanding them 
 according to their apparent signification, and in appropriating 
 to themselves their description and their promises. 
 
 The importance attached by the Jews to ceremonial obser- 
 vances, and the peculiar sacredness they attributed to themselves, 
 necessarily tended to draw in their minds a clear and impas- 
 sable line of demarcation between Jew and Gentile, Avhich 
 latter word included every one that was not a Jew. In matters 
 of business they might, indeed, meet. In fact, throughout the 
 Roman empire, the Jews were generally found wherever an 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 47 
 
 opening for trade presented itself; and everywhere they were 
 among the keenest and most active of traffickers. In all other 
 matters, however, they kept themselves rigidly separate. Not 
 only did they refuse to share in* religious rites ; — they refrained 
 from all social intercourse with Gentiles, neither accepting nor 
 exercising hospitality. Everywhere out of Judaea they com- 
 ported themselves as strangers and pilgrims, having no home 
 but Jerusalem, and holding themselves ready at any moment 
 to sever whatever ties might seemingly bind them to other 
 places ; or, if in some cities, as in Alexandria, hereditary asso- 
 ciation with men of another race had somewhat modified their 
 antagonism, and had began to relax the obstacles to inter- 
 communion, those who had permitted themselves to yield to 
 such influences were looked upon by their more orthodox 
 brethren as little better than heretics or traitors. By other 
 nations the Jews were viewed with dislike and contempt, 
 mingled with that half-admiration that is extorted by the 
 spectacle of men willing to sacrifice everything rather than 
 violate even an absurd conviction. And they repaid these 
 feelings with tenfold bitterness. The very term " Gentile " 
 was a phrase of the deepest reproach, symbolizing whatever 
 could repel and disgust. "Let him be to thee as a Gentile," 
 was to justify the exclusion of the individual designated from 
 social fellowship and religious communion, and to point him 
 out as a fitting object of scorn and avoidance. 
 
 If such were the feelings with which the Gentiles were re- 
 garded in their own lands, in which the Jews confessed them- 
 selves to be strangers, and only indebted for permission to 
 reside to the toleration of the State ; much more was it the 
 case in Palestine itself. There, in the sacred land, given by 
 Jehovah to their fathers, the Gentiles were masters. In Judaea 
 they ruled directly through a Roman procurator. In Galilee, 
 indirectly, but not less really, through Herod. The last 
 seeming vestiges of national independence were effaced when 
 Augustus, upon the banishment of Archelaus, had made 
 
48 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Judaea a Roman province. From that time nothing disguised 
 from the Jews the fact of their subjection. They were taxed 
 for Gentile purposes— overawed by Gentile mercenaries; and 
 the manner in which the power of their rulers was exercised 
 deepened the animosity that their presence occasioned. Our 
 only account of the story as between the Jews and their 
 Roman governors — that from the pen of Josephus — gives us 
 only one side of the picture, and that is obviously coloured 
 by the feelings of the writer. But even if we had an equally 
 detailed narrative from the Roman point of view, it would, in 
 all probability, chiefly differ from that of Josephus by re- 
 presenting the acts of violence and cruelty alleged against 
 Pilate as necessary acts of repression, provoked by the tur- 
 bulence and. sedition of the people ; and, no doubt, this was 
 the case. Enough appears in the pages of the Jewish his- 
 torian^ to shew the precarious tenure of the Roman author- 
 ity, — that it avowedly rested upon military force, and that it 
 was perpetually exposed to the risk of an armed resistance, 
 whenever any seeming weakness of the garrison, or any 
 anticipated interference with religious observances, might 
 encourage or provoke a rising. In such a state of affairs 
 the successive governors would necessarily feel that severe 
 measures of coercion were needed — that lenity was misplaced, 
 and. that concession only tended to keep alive the feelings and 
 the hopes that prompted to rebellion. Every act of resistance 
 accordingly provoked a bloody retaliation ; and this, again, 
 only gave a keener edge to the hatred with which the Romans 
 were regarded, and stimulated the ultimate resolve to dare and 
 suffer everything in order to throw off the alien yoke ; and. 
 this resolve was encouraged by the prevailing belief that the 
 time for the manifestation of the Messiah was at hand, and 
 that the sufferings of the people and the extinction of their 
 independence were the signs that heralded his coming. 
 
 1 It is, indeed, certain that Josephus suppresses a great part of the provocation 
 given by the Jews. The account of the results of the revolt of Judas the Galilacan 
 implies a great deal more of active disaffection than is described in the history. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 49 
 
 Our sources of information, with regard to tlie actual character 
 of these Messianic expectations, as with regard to so much else 
 among the Jews, are scanty and imperfect. It appears probable, 
 indeed almost certain, that during the life of Jesus, at least 
 subsequent to the removal of Archelaus, and until the final 
 revolt of Barchocheba, the majority of the Jews were looking 
 for the immediate appearance of the promised Messiah, who 
 should restore the kingdom to Israel. The precise nature of 
 the expected Deliverer, and the manner in which he was to 
 accomplish his mission were, probably, conceived of in a difierent 
 manner by different individuals. The general impression, how- 
 ever, appears to have been that the Messiah was to be a Son 
 of David, but that his final manifestation was to take place in 
 accordance with the representation given in Daniel, and that it 
 would follow, or accompany, a rising of the people against their 
 foreign oppressors. He was to possess supernatural powers, and 
 his appearance was to be supernatural ; but he was to aid, not 
 to supersede, the efforts of the Jews themselves — to give victory 
 to their arms, not to dispense with their assistance. How much 
 of the imagery of the prophet was expected to be literally re- 
 alized, and how much was referred to the poetic dress in which 
 prophecy was ordinarily clothed, or rather veiled, we are unable 
 to determine. Probably, in anticipation, a literal fulfilment 
 was looked for, though in practice they would be ready to 
 accept some very prosaic realization. But the essential idea 
 entertained by the majority of the nation, and to which the 
 Jews clung until the people were almost extinguished together 
 with the nationality, was that the Messiah shovdd free them 
 from foreign yoke by the instrumentalit}^ of the people them- 
 selves, aided either visibly or invisibly by his supernatural 
 power — that he should exact a full measure of vengeance for 
 any injury inflicted upon them, and that he should then, as 
 King of the Jews, establish his kingdom upon the earth, setting 
 up his throne in Jerusalem, and there receiving the willing 
 homage of the remnant of the Gentiles. The form of the ex- 
 
50 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 pectation, however, did not exclude the idea that the Deliverer 
 should appear at first in some holy form, before the people 
 should have risen against their oppressors, and that some 
 glorious manifestation of his power was to be the signal for 
 their rising ; or that a moral reformation of the nation itself 
 should be the condition and sign of his appearing. 
 
 In the glories of this renovated kingdom, not merely those 
 living at the time of its establishment, but those who had fallen 
 in the wars that were to inaugurate the final triumph, were to 
 share. And all of these last would be raised from the dead for 
 the purpose. The doctrine of the resurrection, therefore, formed 
 an essential part of the popular idea of the coming kingdom. 
 In this resurrection the natural bodies of the departed just were 
 to be restored to them, and they, thus reanimated, were to 
 renew their human life and take their part in the enjoyments of 
 the kingdom upon the same terms, in all respects, as those who 
 had never died. As the kingdom was to be established on earth, 
 though by one who would come in the clouds of heaven for the 
 purpose, those who had been waiting for its coming, but had 
 died before their aspirations were realized, and those who had 
 fallen in premature efibrts for its establishment, or in struggles 
 to preserve the worship of Jehovah, or to resist the unhallowed 
 rule of the Gentile, could by no other means receive the reward 
 of their faith and their devotion. The resurrection of the 
 natural body, with all its incidents, was therefore expected. 
 The doctrine formed a prominent part of the teaching of the 
 Pharisees, though it furnished to the sceptical Sadducees such 
 grounds of objection as are intimated in the question reputed 
 to have been put to Jesus as to the woman who had successively 
 married seven brothers ; and those who had been thus raised 
 were not to be translated into heaven, but to remain and reign 
 on earth. They were to enter into the joy of their Lord — 
 to inherit the kingdom prepared for them ; and that joy was 
 the prosperity and abundance of their renovated land, and 
 that kingdom was the rule of Jehovah, the covenant God of 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 51 
 
 Israel, in tlie person of his Anointed, over all the subjugated 
 nations. 
 
 The party of the Pharisees did not, however, include the 
 whole of the Jewish people. Independently of the Essenians, 
 who lay altogether outside of the sphere of the ministry of 
 Jesus, and whom, therefore, it is not necessary to describe, 
 there was, in Jerusalem, at least, a conservative body — the 
 Sadducees — who were uninfluenced by the Messianic expecta- 
 tions, and denied the doctrines upon which they were founded. 
 They had been generally disposed to acquiesce in the existing 
 order of things, and were willing, so long as the religious 
 observances of the people were tolerated, and no attempt was 
 made to compel a mode of worship inconsistent with the law, 
 to yield a willing submission to the ruling power. In this they 
 were, no doubt, influenced by feelings of expediency. They 
 could not but feel the hopelessness of any attempt to throw off 
 the Roman dominion, and they were reluctant to encounter the 
 certain evils of an unsuccessful revolutionary war. Probably, 
 too, they would have dreaded the anarchy that in their view 
 must follow a successful rebellion more than the continuance of 
 foreign rule. It may be presumed that they denied the author- 
 ity of the prophetical books, and only admitted that of the 
 Books of the law. Certainly they denied the resurrection of 
 the dead. There is no reason to doubt that they were sincere 
 believers in Jehovah, and zealous for the maintenance of His 
 worship. Indeed, it was because of their adherence to the 
 law, simply, that they rejected the doctrines connected with 
 the appearance of the Messiah, and the writings upon which 
 they were founded. They appear, also, to have rejected the 
 "traditions of the Elders" as taught in the schools, and to 
 have refused to be subject to all the minute regulations with 
 which the Scribes had encrusted the original commandments. 
 They were accordingly regarded by the multitude as sceptical 
 and irreligious, and they owed their position and influence 
 entirely to the authority of the foreign government. It would 
 
52 THE JESUS OF HISTORY, 
 
 appear that the xinconcealed enmity of the people had produced 
 a state of exasperation in their own minds that occasionally led 
 them to acts of cruelty ; ^ and that they were sometimes more 
 yindictive and unforgiving than the Romans themselves. Their 
 position was, in some respects, analogous to that of Orangemen, 
 in Ireland, three quarters of a century since ; and, like them, 
 their zeal occasionally hurried them into excesses that were con- 
 demned, even by the power in whose name and on whose behalf 
 they were ostensibly performed. The chief priests, and, appar- 
 ently, the whole ruling body, belonged to this party. Their princi- 
 pal seat was Jerusalem ; and we hear nothing of them in Galilee. 
 Such appears to have been the state of the Jewish people 
 at the commencement of the public teaching of Jesus. The 
 majority was chafing under the Roman yoke, and impatiently 
 expecting the appearance of the promised Deliverer who should 
 free them from its burthen — zealous for the law, but absorbed 
 in questions of rite and ceremony ; — accepting the Scribes and 
 Pharisees for their teachers and guides, both in religion and 
 politics; — possessed by the idea of their own peculiar holiness, 
 and viewing the Gentiles with abhorrence ; — ready at any 
 moment, and almost on any pretext, to rise against their rulers, 
 and gathering from every successive failure only an additional 
 incitement to renewed eflforts. Opposed to these was a small 
 conservative party, insignificant in numbers, and without any 
 weight with the people, — but powerful by means of the support 
 of the foreign rulers whose pretensions they favoured. And 
 over all was the Roman governor — nominated by the Emperor, 
 and liable to be recalled at any moment, and having therefore 
 no interest but to maintain tranquility, and carry out, by what- 
 ever means, the wishes of his master. 
 
 Any attempt to depict the condition of the Jewish people 
 
 ' Such as the murder of James, the brother of Jesus. We, however, know their 
 history only from Josephus, who belougcd to the popular party, and fi-bm the New 
 Testament, which is Messianic, excepting the foui'th Gospel, and there they are not 
 mentioned. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 53 
 
 would be imperfect if it omitted the circumstance that their 
 sacred books contained much to condemn the formalism 
 of the Pharisees, as well as the materialism of the Saddu- 
 cees ; for they proclaimed that justice and mere)' were re- 
 ligious services, higher and more efficacious than fasting and 
 sacrifice. It was not by costly olferings, — thousands of rams, 
 or ten thousands of rivers of oil — that the favour of Jehovah 
 could be secured. Such gifts were superfluous to one whose 
 were all the beasts of the earth. It was not even the yet more 
 costly sacrifice of the first-born (once required by the law) ; 
 the fruit of the body, if ofiered, could not purchase pardon for 
 the sins of the soul. The sacrifices that God required were 
 sorrow for past and the avoidance of future sins. For the 
 wicked to sacrifice while continuing in his wickedness was an 
 abomination ; and only to the man that did what was right 
 could the Lord shew His salvation. The fast he had chosen 
 was not to bow down the head and spread sackcloth and ashes, 
 but to loosen the bands of wickedness ; to undo the heavy 
 bui'dens ; to free the oppressed ; to break the fetters of the 
 slave; to give food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and 
 shelter to the outcast. Not the prosperous and the mighty 
 were the objects of His favour, but the poor, the meek, the 
 humble, the contrite — those who suffered because they did 
 what was right. Prayer and praise even were as nothing — the 
 voice of psalms and the melody of viols ; that which Jehovah 
 required at the hands of His people was that they should let 
 judgment flow as a torrent, and justice as a mighty stream. 
 And, finally, the whole is summed up in the one comprehensive 
 rule : — to man, justice and mercy ; and humility to God. 
 
 These, and many other similar lessons, were, no doubt, habit- 
 ually forgotten or neglected. The position of the Jews was 
 not favourable to the culture of the gentler virtues. Every- 
 thing in their history, for more than a century, had tended to 
 embitter their feelings to other nations. Their attention, con- 
 sequenth', was directed rather to the externals than to the 
 
54 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 essentials of the law — to that which separated them from the 
 world rather than to that which they and others might hold 
 in common. But there must have been some among them who 
 recognized the eternal force of these principles, and more, 
 perhaps, who, almost without being aware of it, felt the un- 
 satisfying nature of the merely formal routine of religious 
 service in which they were required to engage. And, how- 
 ever few these may have been, the precepts themselves re- 
 mained; a silent protest against the prevailing practices, and 
 a potent instrument in the hands of any one who might base 
 his teaching upon them. 
 
CHAPTEE 11. 
 
 SOURCES OF THE LIFE OF JESUS. 
 
 The materials for the life of Jesus are contained exclusively 
 in the writings that now constitute the New Testament. Our 
 first enquiry, therefore, must be as to the authority of these 
 writings. 
 
 Amongst the earliest of these, probably the very earliest in 
 point of date, are some letters of Paul — -those to the Galatians, 
 Corinthians, and Romans. The authenticity of these letters 
 has scarcely ever been seriously questioned; and they contain 
 important indications with regard to Paul himself, as well as 
 to the manner in which he was accustomed to represent the 
 history and character of Jesus. Their object is not historical, 
 but controversial or hortatory. The various references to the 
 life of Jesus are introduced incidentally, by way of illustrating 
 an argument or enforcing a precept. We may, therefore, be 
 certain that they were such as were familiar to his readers, 
 either from his own personal teaching, or from the general 
 teaching of the brethren. It may be well, consequently, to 
 preface our examination of the more detailed narratives that 
 we possess, by a brief statement of what we learn upon this 
 subject from Paul. 
 
 It appears, then, that some years — probably not more than 
 seven — from the death of Jesus,^ God was pleased to reveal His 
 
 1 Professor Jowett has shown, in his "Essay on the Chronology of Paul's Writ- 
 ings," the impossibility of determining the absolute date of the various incidents in 
 his life. Taking the Epistle to the Galatians to have been written about a.d. 58, 
 and allowing three years to have then elapsed since the second visit to Jerusa- 
 
56 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Son in him that he should preach Him to the Gentiles, and 
 that within little more than three years afterwards he began 
 to preach the faith he had once persecuted. We have in Paul, 
 then, a witness whose truthfulness none can impeach, and who, 
 though not a spectator of the incidents he describes, became a 
 member of the brotherhood within a few years after their 
 occurrence. His statements, consequently, may be accepted, 
 not, indeed, as evidence of the facts themselves, but of their 
 being believed at the time, and thus becoming the basis of a 
 religious brotherhood; and his own belief in their reality is 
 evinced by his having made them the foundation of a system 
 of doctrine in support of which he encountered a life-long 
 persecution. 
 
 The materials for a life of Jesus, derived from this source 
 are very scanty. They may be summed up in a few words. 
 Jesus was born of the seed of David after the flesh ; ^ born 
 of a woman ; — under the law ; '^ — became poor for the sake of 
 the saints;^ — was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal 
 broke bread and took the cup, and after giving thanks, said 
 "Do this in remembrance of me;"^ — was crucified dead and 
 buried, and was raised again on the third day,'' and was after- 
 wards seen by various disciples, and, finally, by Paul himself.^ 
 Of his precepts only two are preserved, and they are quoted as 
 authoritative — "Let not the wife depart from her husband"^ 
 and " Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach 
 the Gospel should live of the Gospel."^ To complete the sum- 
 
 lem, this would make tlie date of his conversion about twenty years before ; — three 
 years fi-om the conversion to the first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. i., 18), then four- 
 teen years between the first and second visits (Gal. ii., 1), and then three years to the 
 time of writing the epistle. These dates are, no doubt, in part, conjectural, but the 
 difi"erence of two or three years, either way, would not affect the argument. The 
 conversion may be assumed to have occurred between five and ten years after the 
 death of Jesus. 
 
 ' Rom. i., 3. 2 Gal. iv., 4. 3 2 Cor. viii., 9. * 1 Cor. xi., 23-25. 
 
 5 Passim. The references to the crucifixion and resurrection are too numerous to 
 particularize. 
 
 * 1 Cor. XV., 6 et seq. ' 1 Cor. vii., 10. 
 
 ® 1 Cor. ix., 14. This latter may, however, be merely a deduction of Paul himself. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 57 
 
 mary we may add from later writings, the genuineness of which 
 is not universally admitted, that Jesus took upon himself the 
 form of a slave ; ^ — witnessed a good confession before Pontius 
 Pilate,^ — and ascended into heaven.*^ 
 
 The meagreness of the information thus supplied, may be 
 ascribed to the circumstance that Paul, in his writings, never 
 dwells upon the human aspect of the life of Jesus, excepting in 
 reference to the crucifixion. In his view Jesus seems to have 
 been a being who had appeared on earth among men — who, 
 on earth, was a man; but who, in himself, had no necessary 
 relation to humanity. He was the medium through which man 
 might draw near to God, and God dispense spiritual blessings 
 to man ; and he was enabled to fill this position, because, while 
 in his own proj^er nature he was the Wisdom, and Love, and 
 Son of God ; he had become as a man, poor for the sake of the 
 faithfid ; had taken upon himself the form of a slave, and had 
 even submitted to a shameful death. His object in this volun- 
 tary humiliation was that he might reconcile the world to God, 
 and open for the Gentiles also an entrance into the kingdom of 
 heaven. 
 
 Such a view of the nature and work of Jesus rendered super- 
 fluous, if it did not even exclude, all reference to his human 
 life.^ It was not the doctrines taught by Jesus that Paul 
 preached ; probably he had never enquired what they were. 
 It was Jesus himself that he set forth to his converts ; Jesus 
 crucified for their sake. The miracles which Jesus had per- 
 formed were not the evidence to Paul of the true nature 
 of his Lord-. Had such been the case it would have been im- 
 possible, in the frank outpouring of his feelings, that all re- 
 ference to these miracles should have been omitted ; and there 
 is not, in the whole of his writings, even a trace that he had 
 
 1 Philip, ii., 7. 
 
 2 1 Tim. \'i., 13. 3 Eph. i., 20 ; ii., 6 ; iv., 8. 1 Tim. iii., 16. 
 
 * The view taken by Paul almost corresponds with the modern formula — " Christ 
 came not to preach, but to be the Gospel." 
 
58 
 
 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 heard of them. The chief proof to himself was, no doubt, the 
 revelation that God had made of His Son in him ; and the ex- 
 ternal evidence in support of that revelation — the only external 
 evidence to which he ever refers, was, that God had raised 
 Jesus from the dead ; even this, however, is nowhere exhibited 
 formall3^ The nearest approach to such an exhibition is, 
 perhaps, in the expression that Jesus was declared to be the 
 Son of God, with power, by the resurrection from the dead.^ 
 Not what Jesus had done, therefore, but what God had done 
 for him accredited his mission. It may even be said that from 
 Paul's point of view there would have been an inconsistency 
 in dwelling upon miracles wrought by Jesus as evidence of his 
 true character. In proportion as Jesus had, by their perform- 
 ance, exhibited his essential nature, would the contrast that 
 Paul draws between what of riffht belonsred to him — the form 
 of God, and what he had assumed — the form of a slave, have 
 lost its force.2 But, however this may be, it is quite certain 
 that Paul never refers, in any manner whatever, to any miracle 
 in connection with the life of Jesus, excepting that wrought 
 by God for him — his resurrection.^ 
 
 In these writings, then, presumably the earliest in the New 
 Testament, whose author is known, and whose date can be 
 determined within a few years, and was, probably, within, at 
 the utmost, thirty years of the death of Jesus, we find no other 
 
 ^ Rom. i., 4. The literal translation would, no doubt, be "appointed," not "de- 
 clared." But the authorized version appears to express Paul's meaning. It was the 
 being raised from the dead that manifested, or declared, the appointment of Jesus to 
 be the Son of God. 
 
 2 Even if the authenticity of the Epistle to the Philippians is doubted, there are 
 similar contrasts in the unquestioned epistles — e.g. 2 Cor. viii., 9, though none so 
 striking. 
 
 * The author of "Ecce Homo" appears — for his language is somewhat ambiguous — 
 to represent the faith of Paul as resting upon a belief in miracles, wrought by Jesus, 
 which, by shewing his inherent greatness and power, shewed also the voluntary nature 
 of his sacrifice. That this, at least, is not warranted by anything that Paul has 
 written, or is reported to have said, is evident on a mere inspection. It must be re- 
 membered, also, that upon the ordinary view Paul himself had performed analogous 
 miracles to those ascribed to Jesus, even to raising the dead. It was impossible, 
 consequently, that he coidd regard such gifts as proofs of di\inity. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 59 
 
 information as to his life excepting tliat of his natural human 
 birth ;^ his poverty — the meanness of his station in life;^ his 
 having disciples ; his institution of a memorial feast ; his 
 betrayal, trial, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and, 
 (possibly), ascension. We learn further, that these facts were 
 the basis of a society that existed a few years after the death 
 of Jesus, the members of which were admitted by being bap- 
 tized into his name, believed in him as the Messiah, or Christ, 
 and were waiting for his coming. 
 
 Towards the close of the second century, from one hundred 
 and forty to one hundred and sixty years after the death of 
 Jesus, there is abundant evidence that the four Gospels we 
 now possess, and none other, were received as inspired by the 
 majority of Christian churches ; we might, perhaps, say by all, 
 if we exclude from the title of Christian those sects, such as 
 the Ebionites on the one side and the Gnostics on the other, 
 who were regarded as heretical by the orthodox majority ; and 
 at that time they bore the same names as at present. It is 
 true that they were not the only writings professing to record 
 the life of Jesus, and known by the name of Gospels. At 
 this time, from the authority of their assumed authors, and 
 from the fact that they satisfied the general feeling of the 
 church, they were regarded as alone authoritative. The others 
 might be, and, in fact, were, read and quoted for purposes of 
 edification. Only these, however, are from that time cited by 
 the orthodox fathers in support of doctrine ; and, ever since, 
 they have been almost exclusively the source from which suc- 
 cessive generations of Christians have drawn their conception 
 of the life, teaching, nature, and character of Jesus. 
 
 ^ This is distinctly implied by the phrases " coming of the seed of David, after the 
 flesh ; " " coming of a woman ; " " coming under the law ; " especially the last. 
 
 ^ Took upon him the form of a slave. This expression, however, which is anti- 
 thetical, must not be pressed. Paul might regard any human form as that of a slave 
 in comparison with the glory that of right belonged to Jesus. 
 
60 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 A cursory examination shews that these four Gospels divide 
 themselves into two classes, differing in the picture they present 
 of the teaching of Jesus ; differing also in the events they 
 relate — in the places in which they describe Jesus as habitually 
 teaching, and in the length of time occupied by his ministr}'. 
 The first three Gospels form the one class and the fourth Gospel 
 the other. And this first impression is confirmed upon further 
 examination. The more carefully the Gospels are compared, 
 the more clearly does this distinction emerge. It would be pre- 
 mature to affirm that the two aspects of the life and teaching 
 of Jesus are contradictory ; but certainly they do not naturally 
 correspond. They can, in fact, only be made to do so by pro- 
 cesses of reconciliation, which imply defect or redundancy, 
 omission or exaggeration, on one side or the other. 
 
 Confining our attention, in the first place, to the first three 
 Gospels — the Synoptical Gospels as they have been termed — a 
 careful comparison discloses the existence of very peculiar re- 
 lations between them. It is not merely that they agree in the 
 general description of the life of Jesus, — in their account of 
 the miracles he performed, and of the character and method 
 of his teaching, — while difiering in many particular incidents. 
 The agreement is often so comj)lete as to lead, almost neces- 
 sarily, to the inference that two of the authors copied from 
 the third, or that all copied from some common source. It is 
 not that of three independent witnesses who, in describing the 
 same events, agree in substance, while difiering in colour and 
 detail, but that of persons who, when they do concur, repeat the 
 same statement almost in the same words. And, at the same 
 time, the differences, for the most part, are characteristic of 
 each Gospel, and do not appear to be the result of an inde- 
 pendent tradition, but rather of the views of the writer. The 
 portions peculiar to the second Gospel, consist almost entirely 
 of matters of detail; generally in the introduction of par- 
 ticulars that give, so to speak, a more reaKstic character to 
 the story; — supplying the name, elsewhere omitted, as in the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 61 
 
 case of the ruler of tlie synagogue, whose daughter is healed ; 
 or introducing the very words used hy Jesus, as " Talitha 
 Cumi ; " or giving the stages through which a cure passes, as 
 in the case of the blind man whose sight is restored. In the 
 first and third Gospels, indeed, the parts that belong to each 
 exclusively are often of considerable importance, and present 
 the character and teaching of Jesus under very varied aspects. 
 The general impression may be similar, but many important 
 details are different. 
 
 If, then, we enquire by whom and at what time these 
 narratives were written ; the only testimony on the subject 
 prior to Irenaeus (a.d. 170) is that of Papias, preserved to us 
 by Eusebius, and which recent discussions have made familiar. 
 He is reported in one of his lost writings to have said that 
 Matthew made a collection of the sayings ("Logia") of Jesus 
 in Hebrew, which anyone interpreted (or translated) as he 
 pleased ; and that Mark wrote memorabilia of the life (words 
 and deeds) of Jesus, derived from the teaching of Peter, but 
 not in order. In this, however, there is nothing to shew that 
 the Gospel according to Matthew, as we now possess it, is 
 translated from the Hebrew original spoken of by Papias, or 
 that our Gospel according to Mark is the same as that to 
 which he refers. On the contrary, the former does not at all 
 correspond to the description of a collection of the sayings of 
 Jesus; and the close agreement between the two, in the order 
 of the events, as well as in the events themselves, is a proof 
 that one of them, at least, cannot be that which he describes. 
 They are not two independent narratives. Either the first 
 Gospel is founded upon the second, adding the discourses 
 which are wanting in the latter, and retrenching some minute- 
 ness of detail; or the second is derived from the first by the 
 reverse process of omitting or abridging the discourses and 
 amplifying the details. The internal evidence, consequently, 
 contradicts the external, or, at least, shews that it has been 
 wrongly applied to one or the other. 
 
62 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Of the authorship of the third Gospel we have no informa- 
 tion whatever, excepting that contained in the introduction to 
 the work itself, and what may be deduced from the language 
 of the last portion of the Acts of the Apostles. In the in- 
 troduction the writer speaks of the many who had taken upon 
 themselves to write accounts of what was believed among the 
 brethren, according to the tradition of those who had been 
 from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word; 
 and states that having carefully investigated the subject from 
 the very beginning, he thought it well to write a methodical 
 history for the use of his friend. From the language of the 
 last chapters of the " Acts " it has been inferred that the 
 writer was a companion of Paul, and if so, it has been con- 
 jectured, with much plausibility, to have been Luke. A 
 careful comparison of the latter work, however, renders it 
 probable that it was composed at a date when no companion 
 of Paul could have been alive, and almost certain that no 
 friend of Paul could have been its author; and though it 
 apparently contains fragments of a real diary, kept by a 
 fellow traveller of the Apostle, yet that appears to have been 
 freely dealt with, to make it harmonize with the residue of 
 the work.^ In any case, the third Gospel is the work of a 
 compiler, — not of an eye-witness, — and its claims to our con- 
 fidence must rest solely upon the opinion we form of his 
 impartiality and judgment in the selection and use of his 
 materials. 
 
 The uncertainty which exists as to the authorship of these 
 Gospels, exists also with regard to the date at which they 
 
 1 One single point may be referred to here in illustration of this. Let anyone read 
 the Epistle to the Galatiaus, and Paul's emphatic protest there against circumcision, 
 and the Epistle to the Romans — one main object of which is to shew that the Jews, 
 as a people, would be excluded from the kingdom of heaven, only a remnant being 
 admitted, and consider that Paul's central position was the abrogation of the law in 
 Christ, and then ask himself if any truthful man could have asserted to the Jews in 
 Eome that he had committed nothing against the customs of their fathers, and that 
 for the hope of Israel he was botind with that chain, or whether any trusted follower 
 of Paul could have represented him as making such an assertion. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 63 
 
 were written. This can only be determined, so far as it is 
 capable of determination, from an examination of the writings 
 themselves ; and it appears that they do furnish the means of 
 fixing approximately, at least, the period of their composition, 
 in the different forms they give to the recorded description 
 by Jesus of the signs that should precede his second coming ; 
 and this conclusion is altogether independent of the opinions 
 that may be formed as to the reality of a power of prophecy 
 in its modern sense, — i.e. an accurate prediction of future 
 events founded upon supernatural knowledge. If all the 
 Gospels reported the words of Jesus alike, or, if differing in 
 phraseology, they agreed in substance, the latter question 
 might be raised ; and it would be as allowable on the one 
 side to contend that the precision and accuracy of the pro- 
 phecy shewed supernatural knowledge in Jesus, as on the 
 other to argue that the very accordance of the reputed pro- 
 phecy with subsequent events shewed that it had, at least, 
 been recorded after their occurrence. In the present case 
 there is precisely such a variation between the versions 
 of the prophecy of Jesus contained in the first two Gospels 
 and that contained in the third, as to suggest a difference 
 of date for their composition, and to furnish reasons for 
 inferring what that date is. In the first two Gospels the 
 abomination of desolation, which is by the most orthodox 
 commentators referred to the encompassing of Jerusalem by 
 the Roman armies, is the near precursor of the coming of the 
 kingdom. It is true that this is accompanied, or rather pre- 
 ceded, by a statement that first the Gospel of the kingdom 
 must be preached in all the world. But we see, from 
 the Epistle to the Romans (x. 18), and from Eusebius (H. 
 E., Book III., c. 1), that this was regarded as having taken 
 place, at any rate, before the siege of Jerusalem. 
 
 In the third Gospel, the form of the prediction is dif- 
 fferent. The encompassing of Jerusalem by the Roman 
 armies is distinctly foretold, instead of being shadowed forth 
 
64 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 under a figure. That event is not, however, to be the pre- 
 cursor of the coming of the Son of Man, but of the desolation 
 of Jerusalem itself; and then the Jews are to fall by the edge 
 of the sword, and to be led away captive of all nations, and 
 Jerusalem is to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles until 
 the time of the Gentiles is accomplished ; and then shall they 
 see the Son of Man coming with power and great glory. 
 
 "Without attempting now to enquire into the actual form of 
 the prediction of Jesus, it is scarcely possible to resist the 
 conclusion that the form it receives in the third Gospel, as 
 compared with that which it bears in the first two, is attribut- 
 able to the circumstance that such an interval had occurred after 
 the first were written, as to shew the seeming inaccuracy of the 
 older version. And, if this were the case, — if the later version 
 received its form and colour from contemporaneous history, — 
 .there is equal reason to suppose that this was also the case 
 with the earlier, and that the particular incidents selected as 
 heralding the coming of the Son of Man were such as to 
 receive their application from the events of the day. In that 
 case the first Gospels would be presumably contemporary, or 
 nearly so, with the rising that preceded the expedition of 
 Yespasian, probably about a.d. 6o to 68, and the third of 
 such a later date as to have shewn that there was no such 
 immediate connexion between the troubles of those days, or 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of the Son of 
 Man in the clouds of heaven, as had been originally antici- 
 pated, but that another series of events required to be inter- 
 calated. At the same time, it must have been written before the 
 revolt of Barchocheba, and while the Jews were waiting, down- 
 trodden, but hopeful, for the manifestation of the Messiah.^ 
 
 1 Dean Alford (X. T. for English readers, Int., c. iii., s. 4) argues that none of 
 the Spioptical Gospels could have heen originally written after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, otherwise the omission of all allusion to so signal a fulfilment of prophecy 
 would be inexplicable. Even if we were to assume that the first two Gospels were 
 -WTitten after that date, it would have been inconsistent with their impersonal character 
 to contain any reference to a fulfilment of prophecies they recorded ; and they were, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 65 
 
 The question of the relative priority of the first two Gospels 
 is one of much difiiculty. In an enquiry of this nature, where 
 so much depends upon the impression produced by slight cir- 
 cumstances, there will always be room for much diversity 
 of opinion, and it is scarcely to be expected that all should 
 arrive at the same conclusion. The universal tradition of the 
 Church, which is in such a matter entitled to some weight, 
 assigns priority to the Gospel according to Matthew ; and it 
 appears more probable that a work like the first Gospel should 
 be abridged, with a view of adapting it to Gentile converts, 
 than that so colourless a production as the second Gospel 
 should have been the first record of an individuality so marked 
 as that of Jesus. And as all our information suggests that the 
 first preachers of the kingdom after the death of Jesus under- 
 stood his Gospel to be primarily addressed to the Jews, it is a 
 probable inference that the Gospel which gives greatest pro- 
 minence to this aspect of his teaching was first written. And 
 this, subject to qualifications that will be subsequently referred 
 to, is the conclusion at which we have arrived.^ 
 
 In that case the first Gospel may be assumed to represent 
 the traditions as to the ministry and death of Jesus, current 
 in the Church at Jerusalem within about thirty years after his 
 death. The second would be founded almost exclusively upon 
 the first ; and the third would be derived partly from the first 
 two Gospels, and partly from other sources of information, 
 
 probably, composed, at any rate, at such a time as to allow believers to connect the 
 predicted coming of the Son of Man with the calamities foretold. If not, so far 
 from there being any "signal fulfilment" for the writers to record, the prophecy would 
 have failed in its essential feature. And with regard to the third Gospel, which was, 
 no doubt, composed after that event, does Dean Alford really suppose the writer to 
 have been so little of an artist, as that when recording so precise a prediction he could 
 have thought it needful to remind his readers of its fulfilment in an event of such 
 world-wide notoriety as the fall of Jerusalem ? If so, he has studied his writings, it 
 would seem, to very little purpose. 
 
 ^ The entire question as to the comparative originality of these two Gospels is 
 worked out in great detail, and with much critical acumen, by D"Eichthal, "Les 
 Evangiles, Vol. I., Introduction." There is also an ingenious article on the Gospel 
 of Mark in the " Eevue des deux Mondes," by M. Albert Keville, in which the con- 
 trary conclusion is sustained with much ability. 
 
 5 
 
66 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 oral or written, moulded into a form that embodied the author's 
 own views, and, in many respects, profoundly modified in 
 the process. That the picture they present coincided with 
 the tradition generally received in the Church is shewn by the 
 various notices of the life and sayings of Jesus in the sur- 
 viving works of the orthodox fathers, previous to the middle 
 of the second century. It is true that there are no citations 
 that can be absolutely identified with anything they contain. 
 Those that are made, however, exhibit a general agreement in 
 substance, and in many cases a very close verbal resemblance 
 to these three Gospels, chiefly with the first. Taken to- 
 gether, therefore, subject to a separate investigation for de- 
 ciding their relative authority, as compared with each other, 
 they furnish materials, from a careful examination of which 
 we might hope to form a tolerably reliable, though, no doubt, 
 imperfect conception of what Jesus was, what he taught, and 
 what he suffered. 
 
 If we attempt to take in the fourth Gospel this is no 
 longer practicable. The aspect under which the author re- 
 presents the nature, life, teaching, and miracles of Jesus, is 
 altogether different. We have been accustomed from child- 
 hood to read the four Gospels together, and to form a com- 
 posite idea of Jesus from the combined influence of all, with- 
 out stopping to consider whether the various aspects of this 
 idea really harmonize. It is, therefore, difiicvilt for us to 
 realize the depth and sharpness of the actual contrast between 
 the picture presented in the first three and that drawn in the 
 fourth Gospel. In the former Jesus is the Messiah of Hebrew 
 prophecy — the restorer of the kingdom to Israel ; his apostles 
 in that kingdom are to sit upon twelve thrones, judging the 
 twelve tribes ; he comes not to destroy, but to fulfil the 
 law ; he is a Jew among Jews, recognizing his and their 
 common nationality; he addresses himself exclusively to Jews, 
 though indicating, with more or less of clearness, that their 
 rejection of his claims would involve exclusion from his king- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 67 
 
 dom; he weeps over Jerusalem, and longs to gather its children 
 as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings. In the 
 fourth Gospel there is not a trace of all this. In no respect 
 does Jesus recognize the Jews as brethren ; nowhere does he 
 speak of the law as binding; nowhere does he claim the 
 character of the Jewish Messiah, or preach the good news of 
 the coming kingdom. All the human aspects of his character, 
 as depicted in the Synoptical Gospels, are lost. He performs 
 works of mercy, but not for the sake of doing good, so much 
 as to shew forth his own glory and his relationship to God. 
 He weeps at the tomb of Lazarus, but scarcely from human 
 sympathy, for he had deliberately permitted him to die to the 
 intent that the disciples might believe ; and he knows that he 
 is about to change the mourning of the bereaved sisters into 
 joy, by raising him from the dead. He seeks John the Baptist, 
 but not in order to submit to the rite of baptism, for the history 
 implies that he was not baptized ; but in order that John might 
 bear explicit testimony to his heavenly character and divine 
 mission. In fact, excepting in the names of Jesus and his 
 discij^les, and in the relation of one or two miracles, there is 
 scarcely a point in which the two stories touch until the night 
 of the betrayal.^ 
 
 In any attempt, consequently, to depict the human life of 
 Jesus, it is first of all necessary to determine the respective 
 claims of the Synoptical Gospels, and of the fourth. It may 
 suffice for purposes of edification or of doctrine to blend the 
 various pictures into one artificial whole, without troubling 
 ourselves to enquire whether they really harmonize ; or we 
 may exercise a kind of electicism, selecting patterns from 
 one description or the other, and tacitly ignoring or keeping- 
 out of sight whatever is inharmonious or inconsistent ; or we 
 may dwell alternately upon one picture or the other, more 
 fairly bringing the two into juxtaposition. Any such course, 
 
 ^ This is very instructively, but unconsciously, shewn by a "Harmony of the 
 Gospels," published by the Tract Society. 
 
68 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 liowever, is impossible here. At the very outset of our en- 
 quiry we have to decide which authority we are to follow, as 
 to the time and place of the beginning of the public ministry 
 of Jesus ; — did it begin in Galilee after the imprisonment of 
 John the Baptist, as a call to repentance because the kingdom 
 of heaven was at hand ; or in Jerusalem, by cleansing the Temple 
 and thrusting out the dealers and money-changers, long before 
 John was cast into prison ? And this is only a sample of the 
 discrepancies that pervade the two accounts, so far as the inci- 
 dents of the life are concerned ; while the differences between 
 the teaching and character of Jesus, according as we follow 
 one account or the other, is even more marked and profound. 
 
 It has been suo'o-ested that this latter difference is due to the 
 circumstance that the author of the fourth Gospel was one of 
 a narrower circle of disciples, brought into more intimate re- 
 lationship with their Master, and therefore able to understand 
 the deeper and more spiritual aspects of his doctrine ; while the 
 other Gospels exhibit only its simpler aspect as it appeared to 
 ordinary disciples or to the multitude. But this is contradicted 
 by the Gospel itself. It contains no hint of any special com- 
 munication to John apart from the other apostles. Instead of 
 this, we find him upon every occasion, up to the evening of the 
 betrayal, upon the same level with the rest ; and on that even- 
 ing, though he is represented as being distinguished by leaning 
 upon the bosom of Jesus, there is no separate communication 
 of doctrine made to him. The discourse then delivered is 
 described as being addressed to all the apostles (excepting 
 Judas), and would have been heard by. Matthew and Peter as 
 well as by John. And, beside this, the themes upon which 
 Jesus is represented in this pneumatic Gospel as dwelling are 
 addressed to the multitude rather than to his disciples. The 
 dignity of his own nature — his oneness with God — his pre- 
 existence — the mystical relation in which he stands to the 
 faithful, as the bread they must eat and the water they must 
 drink, — all these, and many more similar mysteries, are pro- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 69 
 
 claimed in their crudest form to the Jewish multitude. What- 
 ever there is of simplicity, tenderness, or encouragement in 
 his discourses is reserved for his disciples, and spoken to all 
 alike. The hard sayings are uttered in the presence of the 
 public, almost, as it would seem, to destroy the impression 
 that his miracles are reported to have produced. It is, in 
 fact, difficult to form any other conclusion from the fourth 
 Gospel than that Jesus, of set purpose, repelled the Jews lest 
 they should believe in him.^ 
 
 How marked, too, is the contrast between the character of 
 his teaching in the two accounts. Instead of the universal 
 invitation implied in the words, " Come unto me all ye that 
 labour and are heavily laden, and I will give you rest. Take 
 my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly 
 of heart," etc. ; there is the distinct limitation implied in the 
 words, "all that the Father giveth me shall come to me," and 
 in the prayer, "not for the world, but for those given me out 
 of the world." Instead of the plain precepts of love to God 
 and love to man being the fulfilment of the law, there is a 
 series of enigmatical discourses, which we, by help of the 
 Christian tradition, and in view of the nature ultimately as- 
 signed to Jesus in the Christian dogma, are able to under- 
 stand, but which must have appeared at once unintelligible 
 and blasphemous if they had been uttered by Jesus before the 
 Jews among whom he lived as a man. And it is difficult to 
 associate the ideas of meekness and lowliness of heart with 
 the reiterated claims to oneness with God — to pre-existence 
 — to individual superiority. In the Synoptics it is to those 
 who listen to his instruction that Jesus addresses the words : 
 " Ye are the light of the world." In the fourth Gospel he 
 claims this character for himself — " I am the light of the 
 
 1 It may be said that a similar conclusion might be drawn from his teaching in 
 parables, as represented in the Synoptical Gospels, and from the reason there as- 
 signed — "that seeing they should see and should not perceive," etc. It may be 
 said, however, that there is an historical propriety in this latter proceeding that is 
 wanting in the other. 
 
70 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 world." In the one it is those who love their enemies that 
 are proved, by this alone, to be the children of the Father, 
 and therefore brothers. In the other, the test of brotherhood 
 is love of the brethren. 
 
 It is not necessary to pursue these contrasts further. Enough 
 has been done to shew the different conceptions of the character 
 and life of Jesus that must be formed according as we receive 
 or reject the fourth Gospel. If we receive it we have no right 
 to place any reliance upon the acts or speeches of Jesus as 
 related in the Synoptics. If we reject it there is nothing to 
 modify the picture they present, since it is in harmony with 
 all early Christian tradition, so far as relates to the public life 
 of Jesus. We proceed, therefore, to examine the claims of the 
 fourth Gospel to be received as authentic and authoritative. 
 
 The only external testimony to its authorship is, that to- 
 wards the close of the second century, it was received as one 
 of the four Gospels, and as the work of the apostle John; and 
 that we are told by Irenaeus that it was written by him at 
 Ephesus, near the close of his life.^ The first formal quotation 
 from it is by Theophilus of Antioch, writing about the 
 year 180.^ And though there are previous references that may 
 be plausibly supposed to relate to it — the earliest of these is 
 about the year 150, or nearly half a century after its supposed 
 date. It is true that recently an argument in favour of the 
 previous existence of the work has been drawn from its sup- 
 posed use by Basilides (a.d. 125), founded upon a passage in 
 the Philosophoumena, and by Valentinus (a.d. 150), founded 
 upon a statement by Tertullian, but, apparently, with no suffi- 
 cient reason in either case. And even if the inference drawn 
 as to its use by these two writers was well founded, this would 
 shew that the work, indeed, was in existence at the time, but 
 also that it was received, not bj'- the Church, but hj Gnostics. 
 
 ' Eusebius H. E., B. V., c. 7. 2 Keuss, Hist, du Canon. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 71 
 
 It would therefore furnisli a strong argument against its sup- 
 posed authorship. For if it had been written by John at the 
 close of a long apostolical career, during the last years of 
 which, at least, we must suppose him to have been teaching 
 the same doctrines and exhibiting the same aspect of the life 
 of Jesus, it can scarcely be supposed that a heretic would have 
 been the first to use the work, or that it would have to wait for 
 another quarter of a century before it received any recognition 
 by the orthodox fathers. 
 
 This entire absence of external testimony is not, and, in fact, 
 cannot be denied. It has been, however, suggested that many 
 testimonies might have existed that are now lost. Papias, for 
 instance, might have referred to it as well as to those by 
 Matthew and Mark, though his words have not been pre- 
 served. Irenaeus, also, who had lived in Asia in his youth, 
 and had thus known, or, at least, had listened to Polycarp, a 
 disciple of John, would not, it is surmised, have received it as 
 the work of that apostle, unless it had been certified to him 
 by Polycarp. And this is, no doubt, possible. But it is not 
 supported by any proof, and it conflicts with probability. If 
 the works of Papias had contained any statement upon the 
 subject that confirmed the orthodox view, Eusebius would 
 certainly have quoted him. And Irenoeus, who gives us the 
 statement as to the time and place of the composition of this 
 Gospel, and who repeatedly refers to Polycarp as his authority, 
 would have also referred to him for this if he had heard any- 
 thing of the sort from him. And though we may question 
 the critical judgment of these Fathers, no one can doubt their 
 readiness to cite every available authority in support of their 
 views. Their silence, consequently, is a proof that they knew 
 of no such statements as have been suggested. 
 
 StiU. it may be made a question whether the materials 
 at the disposal of the author were not such as to entitle 
 his work to credit. He might, for instance, have been able 
 to avail himself of his personal recollections of the teach- 
 
72 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 ing of the apostle, or he might have had at his disposal 
 written memorials of that teaching, preserved by the zeal or 
 the aflfection of some of his disciples. And these, it may be 
 urged, might, probably, from the intimacy that had subsisted 
 between John and our Lord, be more accurate and reliable 
 than the traditions collected by the authors or compilers of 
 the first three Gospels. The latter part of this suggestion 
 may, however, be answered at once. It is contrary to all ex- 
 perience and all analogy that a late tradition, springing up in 
 a distant place among utter strangers, should be more trust- 
 worthy than one earlier in time, nearer in place, and arising 
 among persons, many of whom had been sharers in the events 
 to which it related. 
 
 There are, no doubt, reasons for surmising that the work 
 did, in fact, originate in a place where the memory of the 
 apostle John was cherished, and where the followers of John 
 the Baptist were, or had been, numerous. And Ephesus ap- 
 pears to fulfil both of these conditions. We may infer from 
 the Acts (xix. 1—7) that there was a body of John's followers 
 residing there, some of whom had joined the disciples — for 
 there is nothing to suggest that all had done this. And the 
 uniform tradition of the Church represents John as residing 
 at Ephesus during his later years. The prominence given in 
 the fourth Gospel to the testimony of the Baptist appears to 
 imply that some of the immediate circle to which the book 
 was addressed would be influenced by his opinion. And the 
 words "this is he of whom I said, after me cometh one that 
 is preferred before me, for he was before me" (John i. 30), 
 and " he must increase, but I must decrease " (iii. 30), not 
 merely give a precise application to a speech whose meaning 
 was left indeterminate in the Synoptics, but even seem in- 
 tended to deprecate a jealousy engendered by the success of 
 the new society, as compared with that of which the Baptist 
 was the founder. And, at the same time, the precedence given 
 to the apostle John in some of the most eventful incidents of 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 73 
 
 the history — the importance attached to love of the brethren' 
 agreeing with the few words traditionally attributed to John 
 when he had no longer strength for a formal discourse ; ' and 
 the implied statement that he was originally a disciple of the 
 Baptist, whom he had left only because Jesus was pointed out 
 to him as the Lamb of Grod, equally serve to indicate that the 
 circle of believers whose traditions had been collected, or for 
 whom the work was designed, was one in which the authority 
 of that apostle was respected. 
 
 And, possibly, we may even go further than this. As, has 
 been pointed out,^ the fourth Gospel divides itself into two parts. 
 The former, containing the history of the teaching and of the 
 miracles of Jesus, differs materially from that of the Synop- 
 tics ; the latter, relating to the passion, is very similar in its 
 incidents, and in some particulars (from the Christian stand- 
 point) is even more consistent and probable. And it is chiefly 
 in this latter portion that the precedence of which we have 
 spoken is attributed to John. It is quite possible, therefore, 
 that this may have been founded upon a tradition that grew 
 up under the sanction, and was even founded upon the teach- 
 ing, of the apostle. 
 
 We are compelled to acknowledge that the story would 
 not be necessarily any more trustworthy upon that ac- 
 count. There is, perhaps, nothing in which the memory of 
 persons who are passing into extreme old age is more likely 
 to be deceptive than in the part they have themselves taken 
 in any great event with which they have been connected.^ 
 And if the earlier Gospels really represent the tradition that 
 grew up in Jerusalem, or the earliest teaching of the apostles, 
 that tradition or teaching must have been in process of forma- 
 
 ^ Or was this tradition the reflex result of the Gospel and the Epistles ? 
 
 2 Melanges d'histoire religieuse, par Edmond Scherer, p. 82, 
 
 3 The recent publication of the Correspondence of Earl Grey on the subject of the 
 Reform Bill, by shewing how unfounded were the claims many years since made by 
 Lord Brougham to have influenced the mind of the King upon a decisive occasion, 
 shews also how eminently truthful men, even in the full possession of their faculties, 
 may be subject to hallucinations in matters affecting their personal importance. 
 
74 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTOllY. 
 
 tion under the eye of Jolin himself; for we learn from the 
 Epistle to the Galatians that he was at Jerusalem about a 
 quarter of century after the death of Jesus; and it must, in 
 that case, have received his approval, as well as that of Peter, 
 and of the rest of the Church. 
 
 The portion that may thus be plausibly connected with 
 the teaching of the apostle John, has little bearing upon 
 the history. And in so far as it has, we should still be un- 
 able to say to what extent it might have been modified by the 
 author. Whether, therefore, the fourth Gospel really repre- 
 sents the views of John, can only be decided, if at all, by 
 comparing it with what we are able to gather of his opinions 
 from other sources. 
 
 The latest reference to John in the New Testament, unless 
 we suppose him to have been the author of the Apocalypse, 
 is in the Epistle to the Galatians. Long before this .he has 
 dropped altogether out of the narrative of the " Acts ; " and 
 no one, from the account there given, would ever suspect his 
 presence in Jerusalem at the period of Paul's visit. From 
 the Epistle we learn, however, that he was there, one of the 
 three leaders of the Church ; one, in fact, of those who, though 
 seeming to be pillars, added nothing to Paul in conference ; 
 but who ultimately recognized that the Gospel of the uncir- 
 cumcision was committed to him, and gave to him and Barna- 
 bas the right hand of fellowship that they should go to the 
 Gentiles, reserving to themselves the mission to the circum- 
 cision. We have rio right, perhaps, to draw remoter infer- 
 ences from this statement. Unless we refuse all credit to 
 Paul, we must conclude that John did not then consider that 
 preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles formed any part of 
 the duty of the apostles, but that their mission was confined 
 to the Jews.^ 
 
 ^ Gal. ii., 9. ""We unto the uncircumcision, they (Peter, James, and John) unto 
 the circumcision." This is one of the instances in which it is difficult to acquit the 
 author of the Acts of wilful suppression. 
 
THE JESIJS or HISTORY. 75 
 
 Subsequently to this period, but how soon after we know 
 not, all notices concur in representing bim as established at 
 Ephesus, and suggest, at least, that he continued to preserve 
 the judaical tendencies that from Paul's statement we should 
 be disposed to attribute to him. Thus Irenaeus ascribes to 
 him the preservation of a saying of Jesus, illustrating the 
 abundance that should prevail on earth during the reign of 
 the Messiah, as extravagant as any of the rabbinical fables 
 on the same subject.^ Polycrates, cited by Eusebius (H. E., 
 B. III., c. 31), says that he was accustomed to wear the head- 
 dress of a Jewish priest ; and Polycarp, cited by Irenseus, 
 and Polycrates refer to him as having been accustomed to 
 observe the anniversary of the crucifixion on the day follow- 
 ing the evening of the Paschal Supper, in opposition to the 
 usage that finally prevailed. It is true that these merely 
 traditional accounts must be received with great caution. The 
 concurrence of several independent authorities is not, however, 
 without weight, and we can scarcely imagine that the notices 
 thus preserved should uniformly suggest tendencies on the 
 part of the Apostle opposed to those displayed by the author 
 of the fourth Gospel, if, in fact, that Gospel had been founded 
 upon his teaching. And although there is too much uncer- 
 tainty with regard to the authorship of the Epistles to Timothy 
 to allow of their being cited as an authority upon this subject, 
 yet it is not probable that the mournful phrase, " thou knowest 
 that all they which be in Asia are turned away from me,"^ 
 would have been attributed to Paul, unless there had been some 
 
 ^ " The men of old, -who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remember to have 
 heard from him how, in those days, the Lord taught and said : ' Days shall come when 
 vines shall grow each with 10,000 shoots, and to every shoot 10,000 branches, and to 
 every branch 10,000 tendrils, and to every tencMl 10,000 bunches, and to every 
 bunch 10,000 berries, and every berry when pressed shall jield twenty-five measures 
 of wine,' etc., etc. To this Papias also, who heard John, and had intercourse with 
 Polycarp — PapiaSj an ancient teacher of the Church — bears written testimony in the 
 fourth of his five books." Adv. Haer., cited in Strauss' new Life of Jesus, Vol. I., 
 p. 89. 
 
 2 2 Tim. i, 15. 
 
76 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 wide-spread defection from his principles in this the chief scene 
 of his labours ; and if so, it is difficult to avoid connecting this 
 with the establishment of John at Ephesus as the head of the 
 Church in that district. We can, therefore, it would seem, only 
 attribute the doctrines taught in the fourth Gospel, and the 
 view it presents of the relations of Jesus to the Jews, to the 
 teaching of John, on the assumption that all the tradition re- 
 lating to him is untrustworthy, and that the statements of Paul 
 are exaggerated ; and it is difficult to say how far such assump- 
 tions might lead us.^ 
 
 There are few persons who would now argue that the same 
 person could have written the Book of the Revelations and the 
 fourth Gospel, excepting upon some such hypothesis as that re- 
 cently suggested by Dr. DoUinger, that the author employed 
 different persons as amanuenses, and that the variations in style, 
 knowledge of Greek, and literary finish, perceptible in the two 
 works, result from this. As, however, there is no sufficient ex- 
 ternal evidence of the authorship of the former work,^ and there 
 are strong probabilities against it, we do not dwell upon this 
 point. It will be enough to call attention to the real nature of 
 the question involved, which sometimes seems to have been mis- 
 apprehended. This is not whether such a change of opinion 
 might have been produced in John by time and reflection, 
 as is perceptible in the writings in question.^ A change 
 
 ^ "We have not refen-ed to the incident of rushing out of the bath rather than 
 meet Ceiinthus ; for the mystical love inculcated in the fourth Gospel has been 
 abundantly proved to be quite compatible with the utmost practical intolerance to 
 all who are not recognized as brethren. 
 
 2 The evidence on the subject is collected in Tajdor's " Fourth Gospel." It is, no 
 doubt, true, as he states, that it is stronger than that in favour of the reputed author- 
 ship of any of the New Testament writings ; but this only shews how slight all that 
 evidence really is, 
 
 3 Such, for instance, as has taken place in the mind of Professor F. "W. Newman, 
 and in view of which (apparently) he admits it to be possible that the Eevelationa 
 and the fourth Gospel might have been written by the same person, if a sufficient 
 interval were allowed. He should rather ask himself whether any lapse of time and 
 change of view could make him imagine that his Irish fi-iend, dm-ing his visit to 
 Oxford, preached extreme rationalism, and was forbidden to reside there in con- 
 sequence. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 77 
 
 like this may, under certain aspects, be regarded as possible. 
 It is whether any one, who had been a companion of Jesus 
 during the whole of his public life, and who, as a result of 
 that companionship, had for thirty years after his death enter- 
 tained such an idea of his preaching and of the nature and 
 object of his mission as are exhibited in the Revelations, could 
 have afterwards replaced those impressions by others, not 
 merely diiferent, but opposite, such as form the basis of the 
 fourth Gospel;^ or conversely, whether any one, while retaining 
 in his memory such a recollection of the teaching of Jesus as is 
 exhibited in the latter work, could have written the former? 
 To say, with some orthodox commentators, that change of place 
 and progress of time had altered the views of the apostle, and 
 had made him see old truths in a new light ; or, with others, 
 that the promised Paraclete brought to his recollection inci- 
 dents and discourses which had lain dormant there for half 
 a century, is, no doubt, to furnish an answer, such as it is, to 
 these questions, but one which deprives the work of all 
 historical value. The difference in question is fundamental. 
 The one is the stronghold of those who look for the future 
 reign of Jesus upon earth as the anointed king (= Messiah 
 = Christ) of Hebrew prophecy, and for the gathering of the 
 Jews to his kingdom in Jerusalem ; the other, of those who 
 have discarded these material anticipations for the heavenly 
 kingdom, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. 
 So that while the former lost its authority in the Eastern 
 Church, and was scarcely allowed a place in the Canon, the 
 latter, which at first had only been used by heretics,- and 
 
 ' e.g. "Those that say they are Jews and are not." Rev. Comp. "The Jews" 
 throughout in the Gospel. " They lived and reigned with Chi-ist for a thousand 
 years." Rev. Comp. " In my father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a 
 place for you" Gospel. "The wrath of the Lamb" {ayviov). Rev. Comp. "Be- 
 hold the Lamb {aixvos) of God, that taketh away the sin of the world," Gospel, etc. 
 
 2 Philosophoumcua referred to above. The reference proves that the Gospel was 
 used by the school of Basilidcs, though not by Basilides himself ; and Irena^us, cited 
 in Taylor's Fourth Gospel. The reader who wishes to see the question as to the 
 authenticity of the Fourth Gospel fully discussed, is referred to "An attempt to 
 
78 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 was scarcely known to orthodox writers, has been ultimately 
 accepted as the truest representation of the nature and person 
 and doctrine of Jesus. 
 
 We need scarcely refer to the argument in support of its au- 
 thenticity, founded upon the claim which the fourth Gospel ap- 
 parently makes, by implication, at least, to be the work of "the 
 disciple that Jesus loved." It may fairly be a question whether 
 the passage relied upon^ is the testimony that the writer bears 
 to himself, or not rather the work of some reader, inserted in 
 his copy of the Gospel for the purpose of supplying what he 
 felt to be a want — the omission of all reference to the person 
 of the writer. In whatever light it may be regarded, it will 
 have no weight with anyone who remembers the number of 
 pseudonymous writings current at the time, and the lax views 
 that prevailed upon the subject. There is nothing in the en- 
 tire Christian literature of the second and third centuries to 
 suggest the opinion that a person composing any work in the 
 name of an apostle or martyr, would have regarded himself, 
 or have been regarded by those of his party, as doing what 
 was wrong. On the contrary, pious frauds are explicitly sanc- 
 tioned by almost every orthodox apologist, and, apparently, 
 were practised by many. That a work, consequently, should 
 have appeared during the course of the second century, bearing 
 the name of any person, raises, at the utmost, only a faint pre- 
 sumption that he was the author ; unless there are some corro- 
 borating circumstances, and especially unless there are inde- 
 pendent grounds for supposing that it was known to his con- 
 ascertain the character of the fourth Gospel," etc., by John James Taylor, B.A., 
 where the subject is treated with a falness and impartiality that leave nothing to be 
 desired. The present chapter was written long before the writer had seen that work, 
 but its appearance has enabled him to correct his arguments in some respects, and 
 to omit much that he had inserted. 
 
 1 John xxi., 25. " This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote 
 these things, and we know that his testimony is true." It might, indeed, be sufficient 
 to say that the chapter is obviously an addition by another writer, and at a much 
 later date. It is quite certain that the original Gospel finished with the twentieth 
 chapter. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 79 
 
 temporaries. And, in the present instance, tliere is not a 
 vestige of evidence that such was the case. 
 
 If, then, turning from the external evidence, we examine 
 the contents of the Gospel itself, we shall discover abundant 
 reasons for disputing its accuracy. Let us take the raising of 
 Lazarus — the most striking incident in the work. Are we to 
 suppose that this is the description of an actual occurrence, 
 so that we have no alternative but that of miracle, according 
 to the ordinary" view, or that of fraud, according to the sug- 
 gestion originally made by M. E,enan?^ This alternative can 
 only exist on the supposition that the account is written by 
 an eye-witness. A story like this, related at second hand, by 
 an unknown author, at a distance from the scene of the alleged 
 miracle, and at a time when all who might confirm or con- 
 tradict the story had passed away, would of itself be entitled 
 to no more credit than the relation of similar or even more 
 astounding miracles performed by mediaeval saints. Is, then, 
 the account such as to suggest the report of a spectator, or the 
 invention of a later writer, anxious to exalt the subject of his 
 biography ? Surely the latter. In fact, the whole description 
 is little more than putting into a dramatic form the answer of 
 Abraham in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in the 
 third Gospel ; — " neither will they be persuaded though one 
 rose from the dead." Lazarus, whom the rich man in the 
 parable desired to be raised in order to warn his brethren, is, 
 in fact, raised here ; but the Chief Priests and Pharisees, when 
 they hear of the miracle, so far from beKeving, are only 
 stimulated to adopt more immediate measures to remove Jesus 
 out of their way. One does rise from the dead, but only to 
 heighten their incredulity. These coincidences between the 
 name, the miracle suggested in the one case and accomplished 
 
 ^ In the 13th edition of the "Vie de Jesus," M. Eenan gives up the hypothesis of 
 fraud, at any rate as regards the conduct of Jesus himself. 
 
80 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 in the other, and the actual as compared with the predicted 
 result, can scarcely be regarded as accidental. And it is easy 
 to understand how the idea of the parable should be repre- 
 sented as realized in action in the history ; while it is im- 
 possible to conceive how the fact of the actual resurrection of 
 Lazarus should only have suggested the moral of a parable. 
 
 The manner, too, in which the incidents are marshalled • 
 the needless delay of Jesus, intended to allow of the death of 
 Lazarus, and thus to occasion the deep grief of his sisters — 
 the enigmatical utterances to the disciples ; the dialogue with 
 Martha ; the weeping at the tomb ; the unmeaning prayer ; 
 the command to Lazarus — all give an artificial and, so to 
 speak, a theatrical character to the scene, at variance with 
 the idea we are accustomed to form of Jesus, but which, it 
 must be confessed, lend some colour to the original hypothe- 
 sis of M. Renan. That such an inference should be capable 
 of being drawn, furnishes a strong reason for distrusting the 
 truth of the story. For whatever doubts may be suggested 
 as to other aspects of the character of Jesus, it appears im- 
 possible to question his entire sincerity and truthfulness. 
 
 Apart, however, from objections arising out of the form of 
 the narrative, it seems impossible that such an occurrence — 
 the last miracle wrought by Jesus, the only one wrought by 
 him during his last visit to Jerusalem, — so notorious, and ex- 
 ercising so marked an influence upon his own fate, — should 
 have never been referred to by any evangelist or apologist, 
 excepting by the writer of the fourth Gospel, for more than 
 a century after its occurrence. Surely Mark and Luke, who, 
 according to the received hypothesis, wrote for Gentile churches 
 — Bome, or Corinth, or Alexandria — could have been restrained 
 by no fears for the safety of Lazarus ; and they would, it might 
 be supposed, have been glad to enrich their Gospels by so stick- 
 ing an addition.^ 
 
 1 Dean Alford, N. T. for English Readers, Introdnction, chap, i., sect, v., 1, con- 
 tents himself with saying that the omission is inexplicable. Truly it is so upon the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 81 
 
 And though, -with regard to Paul, it may be said that he 
 does not refer to any miracles wrought by Jesus, and therefore 
 could not be expected to refer to this, it is scarcely possible 
 but that such a miracle should have, in some degree, influenced 
 his reasonings. How, in such a case, could he have spoken of 
 Jesus as the first born of the dead,^ or the first fruits of 
 them that slept,^ without some qualifying phrase? Or would 
 he have appealed to the fact of his having been raised from 
 the dead as the only proof that a resurrection was possible, 
 if a more marvellous raising from the dead had taken place 
 only a few days previously, witnessed not by friends and 
 followers alone, but by the indifierent and the hostile ? Or 
 would he have been represented as arguing before the Athen- 
 ians that the mere fact of God having raised Jesus from the 
 dead, was an assurance that he would by him judge all the 
 world in righteousness, if such a raising from the dead as 
 that of Lazarus had been known to the author of the Acts ? 
 Obviously, the difficulty Paul was seeking to remove, in his 
 argument to the Corinthians, was the utter incredibility, to 
 their apprehension, that the dead body should be reanimated 
 and again united to the living spirit, especially when once 
 the process of corruption had commenced.^ In answer to 
 such a difficulty, the example of Lazarus would have been 
 far more pertinent than that of Jesus. Lazarus was a mere 
 man like those he was addressing, and the process of corrup- 
 tion must have been presumed to have commenced in the 
 four days since his death, while Jesus was, in a special sense, 
 the Son of God, and his flesh had seen no corruption. If, of 
 
 assumption that these writers knew of the event, as they must have done if it oc- 
 curred; but not upon the assumption that it never took place. And when a fact, 
 as to which there is no doubt, is inexplicable upon one supposition, and perfectly- 
 intelligible and natural on another, reasoners, who have no bias, ordinarily adopt that 
 supposition which enables them to explain and understand it. 
 
 ^ irpuTo TOKOS — not first begotten, as in the Authorized Version. 
 
 2 1 Cor. XV., 20. 
 
 2 This also is represented as essentially the difficulty with the Athenians ; "when 
 they heard of raising (not of the resurrection of) the dead, some mocked," etc. 
 
82 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 the exceptional instance of Jesus, lie could say, " whom God 
 raised not from the dead, if the dead rise not," much more 
 miffht he have said this in the case of Lazarus. The whole 
 argument of Paul throughout this epistle, in reference to the 
 resurrection of Jesus, proceeds upon the assumption that the 
 raising of one from the dead was the work of God the Father 
 alone, and gave a special and, as it were, a prerogative cha- 
 racter to the individual thus raised. It is, therefore, com- 
 pletely inconsistent with his knowledge of such an incident 
 as the raising of Lazarus. And of that incident, if, in fact, 
 it had occurred, he could not have been ignorant. 
 
 The interview with the woman of Samaria, the three days 
 residence in a Samaritan city, and the recognition by the in- 
 habitants are so improbable, as to be, in fact, barely credible. 
 It is true that we are not at present entitled to argue from the 
 improbability that Jesus, when seeking to be received by the 
 Jews as the Messiah, should have passed through Samaria and 
 have taught in their cities ; for in the fourth Gospel he does 
 not assume the character of the Messiah; and friendship with 
 the Samaritans would be the natural result of the hostility 
 with which he regarded the Jews. Nor, perhaps, can we infer 
 anything from the subsequent statements in the Acts of the 
 Apostles as to the Gospel having been preached in Samaria, 
 apparently for the first time by Philip, for, apart from the 
 doubt that attaches to the earlier portions of the Acts, that 
 work is written by one of the authors whose fidelity is in- 
 volved in the result of our present enquiry. The improba- 
 bility to which we refer arises out of the position and beliefs 
 of the Samaritans themselves, and is altogether independent 
 of any data furnished by the New Testament writers. 
 
 The Samaritans claimed to be the descendants, and they were 
 the representatives of the ten tribes who, under Jeroboam, had 
 renounced their allegiance to the dynasty of David. They oc- 
 cupied the land of Ephraim, and they inherited the traditions 
 of that tribe, together with its territory. They possessed the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 83 
 
 sites of many of the most memorable incidents commemorated 
 in the early legends of Israel, — the mount upon which Abra- 
 ham was traditionally reported to have taken Isaac for the 
 purpose of offering him up a human sacrifice to the national 
 God, — the well that Jacob had given to Joseph, — the twin 
 mountains of blessing and cursing, Ebal and Gerizim, — and 
 Shiloh, the earliest centre of Israelitish worship. When the 
 Jews returned from captivity, they had been ready to welcome 
 them as friends and kinsmen, and even to assist in the re- 
 building of the Temple, and the restoration of the city. Their 
 advances, however, had been repelled with contumelj^ and from 
 that period there had been a ceaseless antagonism between them, 
 embittered and deepened by centuries of mutual aversion and 
 mutual wrong, and which would render them the last persons to 
 recognize the claims of any one who was to restore the king- 
 dom of David, and establish the supremacy of Judah. 
 
 And this was not all. The Samaritans rejected the very pro- 
 phecies that announced the coming of the Messiah ; principally 
 upon that very ground. The whole of the later literature of 
 the kingdom of Judah was pervaded by the sentiment of its 
 rightful supremacy over the whole land of Palestine, including 
 Samaria, and the prophecies foretold its ultimate restoration to 
 actual dominion over it in the Messianic era. And they as- 
 sumed, throughout, the right of Jerusalem to be regarded as 
 the sole place in which Jehovah could be worshipped. Against 
 these two pretensions the separate existence of the Samaritans 
 was a standing protest. They claimed, at least, equality and 
 independence, and they asserted the superior sanctity of Mount 
 Gerizim. While, therefore, they accepted the law as contained 
 in the Pentateuch, they rejected the entire residue of the Jewish 
 Scriptures ; and this rejection necessarily implied ignorance of 
 their contents. They might, indeed, know that the Jews ex- 
 pected some leader, who, by help of Jehovah, was to free them 
 from the Poman yoke, and establish their kingdom in all, or 
 more than all, its original extent; for this was the rallying 
 
84 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 cry of every successive leader of an insurrection. Bat if they 
 did know this, it is certain, that so far from sharing the hopes 
 of the Jews, they must have dreaded their realization. How- 
 ever much they might regret their subjection to Rome, its 
 equal, though stern administration must, in their view, have 
 contrasted favourably with the treatment they were to expect 
 under the dominion of their ancient foes. During the brief 
 period of stormy freedom that followed the revolt of the 
 Maccabees, the city of Samaria had been taken by the Jews, 
 under Hyrcanus, and rased to the ground. And the Samari- 
 tans could expect nothing less than the proscription of their 
 worship and the desecration of their holy places, if the Jews 
 should at any time become independent and powerful. Of 
 the more spiritual aspects of the expected kingdom they knew, 
 and, in fact, could know, nothing. They believed in the divine 
 character of the Mosaic law, as contained in their copy of the 
 Pentateuch, and in the sacredness of their Temple on Mount 
 Grerizim. And they dg not seem to have looked beyond this. 
 So long as they were permitted to worship Jehovah in peace 
 and safety, according to their own ritual and in their own 
 sanctuary, they asked and expected nothing further.^ 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, the writer of the fourth Grospel re- 
 presents Messianic ideas to have so completely penetrated all 
 ranks of society, as that a Samaritan woman of the lowest class, 
 of immoral habits, living, apparently, in open concubinage, is 
 able to speak of her knowledge that the Messiah should come, 
 and that he should then reveal all things. She is even made 
 
 1 It must be remembered that oui- only sources of information, with regard to the 
 Samaritans, are the writings of their avowed enemies — the Jewish historians — from 
 the author of " Kings " dovra to Josephus. It is quite possible that the blood of the 
 Samaritans was as unmixed as that of the Jews, and that the real ground of hostility 
 was their resistance to the claim of the returned Jews, that Jerusalem should alone 
 possess a temple for the worship of Jehovah. We can scarcely be certain of any- 
 thing beyond the facts that they claimed to be descendants of Joseph (through 
 Ephraim), and that they accepted no portion of the Hebrew canon but the Penta- 
 teuch. Their copy, however, so far differed from that in use among the Jews as to 
 allow them to regard Gerizim as the place in which Jehovah would record his name. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 85 
 
 to recognize Jesus, though a Jew, in that character, because 
 he displays unexpected and, seemingly inexplicable, acquaint- 
 ance with a portion of h6r past history. And not only she, 
 but the inhabitants of the city also believe in him as the 
 Messiah of Jewish prophecy, merely upon her report, and in- 
 vite him, on that account, to enter the city ; an invitation he 
 at once accepts. Such a display, shall we say of faith, or. of 
 credulity, is, in the highest degree, improbable anywhere, and 
 impossible in Samaritans with regard to a Jew claiming to be the 
 King of the Jews ; — i.e. "the Messiah, which is called Christ." 
 
 The narrative, however, does not stop here. Incredible as 
 it must appear that persons ignorant of the existence even 
 of those writings in which the Messiah was predicted, should 
 nevertheless, expect his coming ; — that Samaritans, who both 
 hated and feared the Jews, should at once accept as Messiah 
 a Jew who proclaimed that his nation was in the right, and 
 that the Samaritans worshipped they knew not what;^ and 
 that the inhabitants of a city should have believed in Jesus, 
 and have invited him to reside with them, upon the report of 
 a woman living with a man who was not her husband; — this 
 incredibility is, if possible, heightened by the result attributed 
 to his visit. The people of the city, we are told, hear him 
 themselves, and " know that he is the Saviour of the world — 
 the Christ." For in this they not only attain an elevation 
 which, so far as we know, none of the Apostles ever reached 
 — but they anticipate the loftiest conception that the Church 
 has ever formed of the mission of Jesus. And in doing this 
 they pass completely beyond the ideas of their nation and age, 
 and employ a phraseology that would have been unmeaning 
 to themselves and their audience ; that no one of that genera- 
 tion, in fact, could have understood, if simply employed, with- 
 out further explanation, 
 
 ^ It is only just to the author to remark that this passage, which is opposed to 
 the tenor of Jesus' discourses, and at variance with the purport of the whole Gospel, 
 is, probably, an interpolation. This, however, scarcely affects the argument in the 
 text. 
 
86 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 And not only these Samaritana recognize Jesus as the Mes- 
 siah upon merely hearing him. Many others are represented as 
 exercising equal faith upon similar grounds. Thus Andrew spends 
 a night with him, and the next morning announces him to his 
 brother Simon as the Messiah. Then Philip, upon a mere in- 
 vitation to follow Jesus, which he accepts, describes him to 
 Nathanael as the prophet of whom Moses, in the Law and the 
 Prophets, did write ; and then Nathanael, because Jesus saw 
 him (in spirit) under the fig tree, proclaims him as the Son 
 of God and King of Israel, which, as well as those employed 
 by Philip, are convertible terms with the Messiah. This is, 
 indeed, consistent with the view taken by the author of the 
 fourth Gospel, but it is inconsistent with the opinions as to 
 the Messiah that then prevailed among the Jews. At this 
 time Jesus had performed no miracle. He had assumed no 
 public character. He was neither the preacher of the king- 
 dom nor a teacher of the people. He possessed, therefore, 
 none of the marks by which, according to the prevailing 
 Jewish sentiment, the Messiah was to be distinguished. It 
 is simply impossible, therefore, that any Jew should, at that 
 time, have acknowledged him in that character. 
 
 It is difficult not to see in this an intentional, though tacit, 
 contradiction to the account in the Synoptical Gospels, ac- 
 cording to which it is to Peter that the first formal recogni- 
 tion of Jesus, as the Messiah, is due. From the prominence 
 assigned to this incident, and the emphatic words attributed 
 to Jesus on the occasion, it would appear that this speech by 
 Peter was regarded as an important, perhaps a critical event ; 
 and it may be that the priority so generally conceded to him 
 in the earlier Gospels is connected with this. If, however, 
 we adopt the fourth Gospel, the language of Peter becomes 
 a mere formal repetition of a profession often before made, 
 and the words originally attributed to Jesus are rendered un- 
 meaning. How could it be said that flesh and blood had not 
 revealed this to Peter, when in truth his own brother Andrew 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 87 
 
 had first informed liira of tlie fact — when Philip and Nathanael, 
 in whose company he had been living for nearly two years, had, 
 on their very first introduction to Jesus, made the same acknow- 
 ledgment — nay, when even the schismatic Samaritans had pre- 
 ceded him on one occasion when he was presumably present ? 
 True, Peter is made, in the fourth Gospel also, the mouth-piece 
 of the Apostles in making the acknowledgment ; but how dif- 
 ferent are the circumstances, and how tame the whole character 
 of the incident, as compared with the earlier narrative. Instead 
 of the sudden outburst, giving expression to an idea, perhaps 
 long vaguely entertained, but which had never previously as- 
 sumed a definite form, and now flashed irresistibly upon his mind, 
 and which is received by Jesus as the result of an immediate 
 revelation from God ; — the acknowledgment is assigned as a 
 mere subsidiary reason for continuing to adhere to Jesus. And 
 instead of calling forth praise or blessing, its only efiect is to 
 provoke a rebuke, which any one. of the Apostles, including 
 Peter, might apply to himself ; ^ — " have I not chosen you 
 twelve, and one of you is a devil ? " 
 
 Taken by itself, and apart from the circumstances of time 
 and country, the account of the scene in question in the fourth 
 Gospel may be equally credible with that in the first three. 
 No particular importance could be attached to the declaration 
 of Peter, regarded as a mere formal repetition of a profession 
 of beKef that so many had made before. But when we re- 
 member that every one of these various persons, — Samaritans 
 as well as Galileans, — had a previous independent history and 
 development of his own, — that they had grown up under the 
 influence of ideas received, as beyond all question, by aU whom 
 they knew, and whose truth, therefore, it would never have 
 occurred to them to doubt ; it will be seen how improbable it 
 is that they should suddenly, and without any previous pre- 
 
 ^ The tenor of the fourth Gospel distinctly implies that, up to the night of the 
 betrayal, Judas was among the Apostles upon, ostensibly, as favoured and trusted a 
 footing as any. 
 
OO THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 paration, have emancipated themselves from these ideas, so as 
 to have enabled them, spontaneously, to have assigned to Jesus 
 a character which he is not even represented as claiming. 
 And then it will also appear impossible that the acknowledg- 
 ment of Peter should have been made and received in the 
 mere matter-of-course way in which it is represented in the 
 fourth Gospel. 
 
 And this is only one, out of many instances, in which the 
 position assigned to Peter, in the earlier Gospels, is ignored 
 or lowered in the last. In the first two Gospels Jesus is re- 
 presented as singling out, as the very first of his immediate 
 followers, the two brothers, Simon and Andrew, who, at his 
 call, leave everything to follow him. And throughout the 
 Synoptical Gospels, Peter is almost invariably mentioned first 
 among the Apostles ; and he is represented as having been 
 selected by Jesus, in some of the most striking incidents of 
 his career, as one of the three chosen to accompany him. In 
 the fourth Gospel there is nothing of this. Andrew intro- 
 duces his brother to Jesus, and, excepting upon the single 
 occasion in which he is made to answer, in the name of the 
 twelve, to the enquiry of Jesus, whether they also will leave 
 him, there is no mention of his name, until after the cruci- 
 fixion, except in connection with the washing of feet and 
 the denial. The one disciple whom Jesus personally calls, is 
 Philip, And, upon the two occasions in which the names of 
 Apostles are mentioned before the night of the betrayal, the 
 two named are Andrew and Philip. It is not easy to account 
 for this, for the suggestion made by M. Kenan, that it is 
 the expression of personal jealousy, has no meaning, except 
 upon the assumption that the fourth Gospel is the work of 
 the Apostle John ; and, even upon that assumption, is, at least, 
 gratuitous. Might it not be that Peter was still claimed by the 
 Judaizing party in the Church, as its especial head, and that, 
 therefore, the anti-judaical author of the fourth Gospel wished 
 to lessen the importance attached to him in the earlier tradition ? 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 89 
 
 Or was it that claims to precedence and supremacy connected 
 with the name of Peter had already begun to cast their ominous 
 shadows over the scene ? These are questions which, in our 
 entire ignorance of the circumstances of the author, and of the 
 precise time and place of the composition of the work, we are 
 unable to answer. All that we can say is, that the position of 
 Peter among the Apostles, and in relation to Jesus, is very dif- 
 ferent in the fourth from what it is in the first three Gospels, 
 and by the uniform tradition of the Church, and that it is not 
 probable this difference can be other than intentional. 
 
 It would be easy, but needless, to multiply these instances. 
 The wild legend connected with the pool of Bethesda, of which 
 no writer, Jewish or Christian, gives a hint ^— the assumption 
 either that Peter was a disciple of John the Baptist — for other- 
 wise he would not have been on the spot — or else that Betha- 
 bara, where John was baptizing, was so near to Galilee as that 
 Andrew might see Peter while residing at home, the morning 
 after a night spent with Jesus ; — the statement that on the third 
 day after the first appearance of Jesus, he had a known and 
 recognised body of disciples, who were, as a matter of course, 
 invited with him to the wedding feast — are only a few of the in- 
 stances which shew that the work is not the production of an eye- 
 witness, but of one who had no personal knowledge of the facts 
 and but imperfect means of information. We need not enquire 
 how far a contemporary narrative might be discredited on ac- 
 count of similar improbabilities. It may be that in such a case 
 we should accept the story on account of the credit due to the 
 writer. Or it may be that no single testimony, however seem- 
 ingly unexceptionable, would suffice to outweigh them. And 
 certainly this would be the case if we found that all the inci- 
 dents to which our suspicions attached were connected with the 
 doctrinal bias of the writer, and served to promote the object of 
 his work. And we do find this in the fourth Gospel. Not 
 
 1 Excepting, of course, sucli later Christian writers as have derived their materials 
 from the fourth Gospel itself. 
 
90 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 merely does all the evidence suggest that it was written at a 
 later date and by an unknown, author ; but its contents, apart 
 from the miracles, conflict with historical probability and have 
 a perceptible dogmatic object. 
 
 In attempting, therefore, to depict the life of the historical 
 Jesus, we are unable to attach any weight to the fourth Gospel' 
 either as a record of fact or of doctrine. In many particulars, 
 however, it exhibits in details what is implied in, or may plau- 
 sibly be deduced from, sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synop- 
 tical Gospels.^ And the spiritual lessons it embodies — the 
 mingled elevation and tenderness of the character of Jesus — the 
 deep pathos of many of his utterances, especially of those on the 
 evening preceding the crucifixion — and the description it gives 
 of the intimate union subsisting between himself and the Father 
 on the one hand, and himself and his disciples on the other ^ 
 while they account for the speedy reception of the work, have 
 made it probably the most influential of all the canonical 
 writings in forming the prevalent conception of the nature 
 and character of Jesus. And in these aspects it has an ideal 
 truth that none can fail to recognise. But, on the other hand, 
 there is no writing in the New Testament, excepting, perhaps, 
 the Apocalypse, in which so much prominence is given to the 
 separation between the Saints and the World ; none in which 
 the virtue of Christian love is so distinctly restricted to those 
 who form part of the Christian body ; none, therefore, that 
 exhibits such a spirit of scorn and hostility towards all who 
 are not members of one particular sect, or believers in one 
 special creed. It has intensified love to the bi'ethren, but only 
 by narrowing the terms of brotherhood. And the recent at- 
 tempt ^ to shew that God is not the Father of any but the elect, 
 from which it necessarily follows that they alone are brethren, 
 is little more than pushing to their remotest consequences some 
 of the doctrines of this Gospel. "Whether we should be bound 
 to accept such views, even if we had reasonable grounds for 
 1 Reuss, Theologie Chretienne, vol. ii. 2 jjy Dr. Candlish. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 91 
 
 supposing ttat John was the author, may be a question. Apart 
 from this, however, we may safely reject them, and, on the 
 ground of our common humanity, continue to regard all man- 
 kind as our earthly brethren, and God as their, and our, 
 heavenly Father. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SYNOPTICS. 
 
 Our investigations so far have led us to the conclusion that 
 the only reliable materials for the life of Jesus are to be found 
 in the first three Gospels, and that no assistance is to be derived 
 from the fourth. Our next subject of enquiry, then, must be 
 the authority for these three Gospels. 
 
 This enquiry has two distinct aspects. Can we accept any 
 one of our present Gospels as containing the original Gospel 
 current in the Church of Jerusalem, or preached by Peter ; and 
 if not, can we by their means recover the original Christian 
 tradition? If we assume, with orthodox writers, that we possess 
 the Synoptical Gospels in the form in which they were origi- 
 nally written, the first question must be answered in the nega- 
 tive. And, in that case, we must place their composition at a 
 much later date than we have conjecturally assigned to them. 
 We should, indeed, only be able to use them for the purpose of 
 enabling us to answer the second. The point, therefore, to be 
 decided is whether any of these gospels is an original work, 
 into which interpolations have been subsequently introduced, 
 capable with more or less certainly of being now pointed out ; 
 or whether each is the work of a later writer availing himself, 
 perhaps, of original materials, but selecting and combining these, 
 and dealing freely with them in view of his own conception of 
 the true character of the history. In the former case we may 
 be able to proceed with a degree of confidence that is scarcely 
 possible in the latter. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 93 
 
 There are some general considerations, independent of any 
 detailed enquiry, that appear to support the former view. As- 
 suming, as we are almost compelled to do, that there was some 
 original Gospel, it would certainly be more probable that it 
 shoidd be preserved and added to, than that it should be re- 
 edited and destroyed. The former would be done piecemeal, at 
 intervals, with no conscious perception of the ultimate result. 
 And whatever authority belonged to the original portion would 
 remain unaffected by the process ; while each separate addition, 
 inserted upon the report of some trusted brother, would be re- 
 garded almost from the first with the same respect that attached 
 to the older part of the work in which it was incorporated. 
 The latter would be a conscious and deliberate act, implying a 
 degree of authority which probably no Christian would then 
 venture to assume ; and the new Gospel thus produced could 
 not at once — probably would not at any time — acquire the con- 
 fidence of the community. And, in addition to these motives, 
 there would be the practical inducement, furnished by the labour 
 and cost of copying manuscripts, to delay the necessity for this 
 as long as might be practicable. 
 
 If, too, any Gospel were thus re-written, we should expect to 
 find a softening down of obnoxious phrases and a modification 
 of prophecies that in their actual form appeared to have been 
 contradicted by the event, as well as the introduction of new 
 matter. The first Gospel contains many sayings that could 
 scarcely have been current in the Church after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews ; and any person 
 who was composing the work anew for the purpose of bringing 
 it up to the later standard of Christian opinion would, it may 
 be supposed, have suppressed or softened these, instead of pre- 
 serving them in their original form. It would not, perhaps, 
 appreciably affect the results of our enquiry whether we were 
 to suppose that the work was re-edited, preserving the original 
 matter in its first form, but inserting new matter from other 
 sources, or that the new portions were interpolated into the 
 
94 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 older work. But, as a question of fact, tlie latter would seem 
 to be incomparably more probable. 
 
 We have been so long accustomed practically to look at tbe 
 New Testament as one work, and to regard the form in wbicb 
 it has existed for so many centuries as its original form, that it 
 is not easy to place ourselves in a position to understand the 
 mode of its formation. We scarcely realize that there was 
 a time, after the death of Jesus, when no part of it existed, 
 and a time during which it was being formed; nor that 
 during these periods its various parts, at least the historical 
 portions, possessed no peculiar sacredness or authority. And 
 yet the former is, of course, an obvious fact, apparent upon 
 the face of the work itself; and the latter is proved by an 
 amoimt and variety of testimony that would be irresistible 
 did it not conflict with impressions cherished by the whole 
 Christian world; impressions received without investigation, 
 but assumed to be raised above all need of proof. It would 
 lead us too far from our present purpose to furnish proofs 
 of this latter statement in detail. It is perhaps sufficient to 
 say that none of the Gospels are cited with the formulas " as 
 it is written" until after the middle of the second century, 
 or upwards of one hundred and twenty years after the death 
 of Jesus.^ 
 
 We might, in fact, refer for this purpose to the introduction 
 to the third Gospel. It is obvious from this that the writer did 
 not regard his authorities as possessing any greater sacredness 
 than belongs to historical compositions in general, and it can 
 scarcely be doubted that among these authorities were the first 
 two Gospels, or the sources from which they were derived. He 
 disclaims inspiration himself, and he implies in the clearest 
 manner that he did not attribute inspiration to those who 
 had written before him. Accordingly he deals freely with his 
 materials — re-arranging, altering, omitting, and adding — so as 
 to produce a narrative embodying his own individual conception 
 * Reuss, Hist, du Canon, chap. iii. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 95 
 
 of the life and teacMng of Jesus. And, from his example, we 
 may be assured that no scruple would exist to prevent the 
 fortunate possessor of an older Grospel from interlining, or ad- 
 ding on the margin, any speech or miracle not included in it 
 that he might have learned from some authoritative source; 
 or to prevent a copyist from inserting these additions in the 
 text of the new copy. We learn from Jerome^ that this was 
 the practice even in his time with regard to the Latin version 
 then in use, though the Canon had been long practically settled^ 
 And we may safely conclude that similar practices had pre- 
 vailed before the Canon had assumed its actual form, or rather 
 before the collection of writings that afterwards constituted it 
 was formed. Such practices, however, could not prevail with- 
 out gravely affecting the character of the writings upon which 
 they were employed. 
 
 The purpose for which the Grospels were at first used, 
 that, namely, of helping to circulate the traditional accounts 
 through all the Churches, — and which were derived directly, 
 or at second hand, from the Apostles, — would, of itself, favour 
 the insertion of any new matter that might come to the know- 
 ledge of the owner of a copy ; and there was no such sacredness 
 attached to their character as to suggest the idea of fraud or 
 wrong in inserting it. They were impersonal accounts, never 
 referred to by the name of the author until the last quarter 
 of the second century, — they were regarded as truthful, but 
 there is not a single phrase in any previous writer to suggest 
 that they were regarded as inspired. And, beside this, the 
 text was fluctuating and unfixed. There is scarcely a quo- 
 tation, before the year 180, that can be identified, absolutely, 
 with any text in our existing Gospels. Sometimes, generally, 
 in fact, they approach the first Gospel ; sometimes the third ; 
 sometimes, but very rarely and doubtfully, they appear to 
 contain reminiscences of the fourth ; sometimes they are de- 
 rived from an Apocrj^hal Gospel ; and sometimes we are 
 
 1 Ad Damasum Prsefatio, cited in D'Eichthal, Les Evangiles, vol. i., p. 204. 
 
96 THE JESUS or HISTORY, 
 
 unable to find any trace of their source. But there is never 
 that precise identity which we have a right to expect in 
 authors quoting from works whose form was settled and 
 whose authority was recognized. 
 
 Of all the fathers before Irenaeus and Tertullian, Justin has 
 made the most numerous quotations from the historical narra- 
 tives of the life of Jesus. He cites them, almost invariably, 
 by the name of memorials {airofivrj^ovevfiara), and so copiously, 
 that it has been said a tolerably complete life of Jesus might 
 be made up from his quotations, almost in the language of one 
 or other of the Synoptics. These quotations, however, though, 
 for the most part capable of identification, exhibit, almost in- 
 variably, some verbal difierences. If made from memory, as has 
 been suggested, this would at least prove that neither Justin nor 
 those whom he was addressing attached any special value to the 
 letter of the record. But there are two circumstances which ap- 
 pear to render it improbable that this should have been the cause 
 of the difierences observed. In the first place, Justin has often 
 occasion to cite the same passage more than once, and it is found 
 that in these instances each such passage is almost uniformly 
 cited in the same words. And this would scarcely be the case 
 if the difierence between the force of the quotation and our 
 existing gospels was the result of inaccuracy of memory. And, 
 in the second place, many of the same texts are cited by the 
 author of the Clementine Recognitions, a work probably of 
 nearly contemporaneous date, and in that case his citations 
 agree almost always with those of Justin ; — showing that both 
 writers drew from a common source. The only inference is that 
 though Christian tradition was becoming, or continued to be, 
 fixed and uniform, the writings in which that tradition was 
 embodied had not at that time assumed their ultimate shape. 
 
 This inference is again confirmed by the well-known " Codex 
 Bezae." Without pretending to ofier any opinion as to the 
 authority of that manuscript, it is impossible to suj)pose that 
 it stood alone. It must represent a class of copies, — itself the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 97 
 
 reproduction of some older manuscript that has now perished, 
 and one of many similar exemplars made for the use of the 
 Churches. It shows, therefore, how far the text of the Gospels 
 was from being settled, even in the fifth or sixth century, to 
 which it is supposed to belong. 
 
 Let us, then, suppose the good news of the Kingdom to be 
 preached in Hippo, or in Carthage, by some followers of Paul. 
 The announcement is that in a short time, almost certainly 
 within the course of the existing generation, Jesus of Nazareth, 
 whom the Romans had crucified, but whom God had raised 
 from the dead, would return to earth from the heaven whither 
 he had ascended, to reward those who believed on him, and to 
 take vengeance on his enemies. Such an announcement, espe- 
 cially when coupled with statements of his pre-existence, and 
 of his voluntary submission to sufiering and death for the 
 sake of the faithful, would excite a lively curiosity as to the 
 details of his human life. The readiest and most ample source 
 of information upon this subject would be the living voice of 
 those who had learned from the companions of Jesus the history 
 of what he had said and done. This, however, though copious, 
 was fleeting. The brethren, therefore, would naturally desire 
 to procure some permanent record to which they might recur to 
 correct or to confirm their recollection. Suppose that to such a 
 Church a translation of the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 
 referred to by Papias, had been sent. If, now, they found in 
 this an omission of sayings of Jesus of which they had heard 
 from other sources, it is obvious that there was nothing in the 
 nature of the work, or in the object for which it was procured, 
 to prevent them from inserting these, and so making the 
 memorial more complete. And still less would there be any- 
 thing to restrain them from adding to it a description of the 
 incidents of his public life — of the miracles he wrought, and 
 the sufierings he endured. 
 
 We are apt to forget the difierence in this respect between 
 those days and the present. Now, memoirs are printed, and 
 
 7 
 
98 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 hundreds or thousands possess a copy, each of which remains as 
 a perpetual witness of any future alterations. Then, however, 
 one copy would be as much as each Church would possess at 
 the beginning. It would probably be only one copy of a single 
 Gospel, — and only one or two members in the Church would 
 be able to read it. Instead of forming a manual for study 
 by the fireside or in the family, it was kept to be read at the 
 weekly assembly of the congregation. The hearers, so far from 
 complaining of any additions to its detail, would rather rejoice 
 at the greater amount of information they were by this means 
 enabled to possess ; and this process would continue so long as 
 there was a living tradition. 
 
 It may, no doubt, be said, that such a representation of the 
 practice of the different Churches is inconsistent with the fact 
 that we have only four Gospels, instead of hundreds, as there 
 would have been in that case. But this objection leaves out of 
 sight two circumstances. First, that the original tradition with 
 regard to the public life of Jesus was restricted within narrow 
 bounds, and was watched over by the heads of the different 
 Churches ; and thus scarcely gave opportunity for any great 
 variation. And, second, that the influence of the Church, 
 when it adopted the Canonical Gospels as alone authoritative, 
 would be employed to suppress all copies that departed, in any 
 marked degree, from the version it had sanctioned. It is not 
 possible, perhaps, to estimate the separate influence of each of 
 these causes. "With, regard to the former, there is scarcely a 
 trace in the writings of any of the early Fathers of any other 
 incident relating to the public life of Jesus, excepting those 
 mentioned in the Synoptical Gospels.^ And with regard to 
 
 ^ The only additional circumstances appear to be that Jesus was born in a cavern ; 
 that the Magicians came from Arabia ; that on the occasion of the baptism a fire was 
 kindled on the Jordan ; that the Jews regarded the miracles of Jesus as magical 
 illusions ; that not one of the Apostles came to his assistance when he was arrested, 
 and that they all denied him till after the resurrection ; and there is also a diflerent 
 account of the manner in which Judas met with his death — having been crushed by 
 a cart in a narrow way. With regard to the sayings, there is that preserved by Papias 
 and Irenseus, cited above, as to the "giant grapes" of Paradise ; two from " Codex 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 99 
 
 the latter, there are strong grounds for supposing that it widely- 
 prevailed.^ And, apart from any active measures for destroy- 
 ing copies that did not agree with the authorized version, the 
 mere fact that they were not used in public readings, or ad- 
 mitted as an authority, would tend to their disuse by the ortho- 
 dox and their consequent destruction. And, if any Church or 
 party had persisted in using such copies they would, by reason 
 of that very persistence, have been regarded as heretical, and 
 their books would share the common fate of all heretical writings. 
 From these considerations we may, perhaps, conclude that al- 
 though there is no certainty that we possess one of the Gospels 
 in its original form, there is reason to believe that they all re- 
 present faithfully the Christian tradition of the first century 
 after the death of Jesus ; and that whatever alterations may have 
 been made in the text, were made in good faith, and in order 
 to render the work as correct and complete as possible. Still, 
 such alterations may have, in efiect, gravely modified the cha- 
 racter of the work into which they were introduced, and may 
 have changed the aspect or blurred the lineaments of Jesus 
 as originally pourtrayed. It is, therefore, of direct practical 
 moment to enquire whether the Gospels we possess retain their 
 first form, and, if not, whether we can in any degree indicate 
 the nature and extent of the changes they have undergone. 
 
 Bezae : " one, " Seek ye out of little to increase, and out of greater to become less ;" 
 and the other, the speech addressed to a man found writing on the Sabbath day, 
 " Man, if thou knowest what thou doest happy art thou, but if thou knowest not, 
 thou art accui-sed and a transgressor of the law;" one from the Epistle of Barnabas, 
 " those who would receive my kingdom must be contrite and suffering, and so receive 
 me ; " one cited by many of the Fathers, " Be ye shrewd dealers ; " and, fi'om Justin, 
 "There shaU be divisions and heresies." "In whatever I find you, in that will I 
 judge you." , " If you love them that love you what new thing do ye ; do not even 
 the harlots so ?" It is, however, certain that if the works of Papias had not 
 been opposed to the prevailing sentiment of the Church, and on that account allowed 
 to perish, many more sayings of Jesus would have been preserved. 
 
 ^ The instance of Theodoret, who desti'oyed nearly two hundred copies of the "Dia- 
 tessaron" (Reuss, Hist, du Canon, p. 74), and of Serapion who stopped the reading of 
 the Gospel of Peter (Euseb. H. E., B. vi., c. 12), may be cited. The corresponding 
 destruction, too, of the writings of Porphyry, shews the spirit by which the leaders 
 of the Church were actuated. 
 
100 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 And if, as we have some reason to conclude, the first Gospel is 
 the earliest, it is obvious that such enquiry is most important 
 with regard to that. There would be but a short time and 
 little inducement to add to the third Gospel, itself a compilation 
 of comparatively recent origin, and, therefore, presumably con- 
 taining all that the compiler deemed authentic and interesting ; 
 while the first Gospel, nearly half a century earlier in point of 
 date, would certainly be exposed for a longer period, and would 
 probably ofier greater inducements to the work of alteration. 
 And, if we could be sure of absolutely recovering the original 
 text of the third Gospel, this would only put us in possession of 
 the views taken by a writer of the beginning of the second cen- 
 tury, probably seventy years after the death of Jesus ; while, if 
 we could recover that of the first Gospel, we should be able to 
 place ourselves at the point of view of the Church at a time 
 when many of the Apostles were probably alive, and before the 
 original tradition had been coloured by the admixture of foreign 
 elements. 
 
 Upon a careful examination of the first Gospel it will be 
 found to contain two dissimilar, if not conflicting, classes of 
 ideas. On the one hand, Jesus is represented as basing his in- 
 structions upon the law, and proclaiming its inviolability and 
 permanence. His teaching difiers from that of the Scribes and 
 Pharisees in this — that he separates the form from the substance, 
 and distinguishes between the spirit and the letter. He pre- 
 scribes keeping the commandments as the means of gaining 
 Eternal life ; and those commandments are the decalogue and 
 the command to love God from Deuteronomy, and to love your 
 neighbour from Leviticus. He denounces ritualism — which then 
 threatened to stifle Judaism as it has at times almost stifled Chris- 
 tianity — not, indeed, with the purpose of teaching indifierence to 
 the fulfilment of all legal requirements, but in order that these 
 should not satisfy the soul, as though their observance could 
 dispense with the weightier matters of law, — justice, mercy, 
 and faith. WhUe expressly sanctioning submission to Eome 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 101 
 
 in purely civil matters, administrative and revenue, by tlie em- 
 phatic declaration : " Render unto Caesar the things that are 
 Caesar's," he equally excludes that submission in all matters 
 pertaining to religion by the equally emphatic phrase: "And 
 to God the things that are God's." And this last phrase, as 
 uttered by him after his public entry into Jerusalem in the 
 character of King, and addressed to Jews, must have been in- 
 tended and understood to refer to the requirements of the 
 Jewish law ; and in accordance with this we find him con- 
 fining his own mission, and that of his Apostles, to the Jews.^ 
 His coming kingdom, too, is to be Jewish. In that kingdom 
 the Apostles are to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel ; and, before Pilate, he recognizes his own title 
 to be King of the Jews. And he even excludes Gentiles from 
 the fellowship of his disciples : " Let him be to thee as a 
 Gentile 2 and a publican." 
 
 These passages, — and they represent the general aspect of the 
 work, — exhibit Jesus in the character of a Jewish prophet and 
 reformer ; recognizing the claims of the Jewish law and the 
 prerogatives of the Jevirish people, but elevating the one, and 
 liberalizing the other. By the side of these, however, are 
 others of an entirely different character. Among these we 
 may notice the .speech attributed to John the Baptist ; ^ the 
 history of the centurion of Capernaum ; the parables that 
 shadow forth the rejection of the Jews, and the assertion that 
 the kingdom of God shall be taken from them,* and given to 
 a nation bringing forth the fruits of righteousnesss ; and, more 
 than all, the command to make disciples of the Gentiles, by 
 the mere act of baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
 
 1 Matt. X., 5, 6 ; xv., 24. 
 
 2 Matt. XATiii., 17. Not heathen, which expresses the later opposition between 
 Christians and those of the nations who had not joined the Church. 
 
 3 Matt, iii., 6-11. This appears, indeed, to be limited to the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees; but the phrase, "thiak not to say within yourselves we have Abraham for 
 o ur father," etc., applied equally to the whole people. 
 
 * Matt, xxi., 43. 
 
102 THE JESrS OF HISTORY. 
 
 and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the question we have 
 to determine is, whether we are to consider this obvious con- 
 trast between the character of different portions of the book 
 as a part of its original composition, or as the result of such 
 interpolations as we have shown to be, at least, possible. 
 
 This question, it will be observed, is altogether distinct 
 from that whether these latter passages formed a part of the 
 actual teaching of Jesus, though having, no doubt, an im- 
 portant bearing upon it. "We may believe that Jesus used 
 the words attributed to him, and yet it might be improbable 
 that a writer, who, in the greater portion of his work, has re- 
 presented the Jews as the inheritors of the kingdom, and Jesus 
 as so peculiarly the prophet and Messiah of Israel, should have 
 inserted these other passages. The one enquiry, whether Jesus 
 actually employed language implying the entire rejection of the 
 Jews and admission of the Gentiles, is one upon which we are 
 not yet prepared to enter. The other, whether that language 
 was recorded in the first Gospel, we shall briefly examine. 
 
 The time at which we suppose the first Gospel to have been 
 written was within a few years of the tumult at Jerusalem 
 that led to the imprisonment of Paul and his voyage to Eome ; 
 and the tradition that it represents must have been in process 
 of formation during the preceding quarter of a century. "We 
 have abeady stated, and shall further on give additional reasons 
 for our conclusion, that the story in the Acts cannot be accepted 
 as true ; still, it affords indications of the light in which the 
 early history of the Church was regarded at the commence- 
 ment of the second century, and it has never been suspected 
 of exaggerating the judaical tendencies of the Church at Jeru- 
 salem. The description of that Church, immediately after the 
 death of Jesus, and to the close of the history given in the 
 Acts, is, however, such as we might anticipate if his teaching 
 had, in fact, been such as is represented in the first Gospel, 
 excluding those passages which speak of the rejection of the 
 Jews in favour of the Gentiles. Thus Peter, speaking to the 
 
THE JESITS OF HISTORY, 103 
 
 Jews, says: "The promise is unto you and your children;"^ 
 not, indeed, exclusively, for with them were to be joined as 
 many as Grod should call of them that were afar oS, — but pri- 
 marily. And, again, " Ye are the children of the covenant 
 which God made with Abraham. "^ So Jesus is a "Prince 
 and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel."^ The speech 
 attributed to Stephen, too, is eminently Jewish, and, so far as 
 we can judge, could have excited opposition only because of 
 his vehement denunciation of the rulers for having procured 
 the crucifixion of Jesus, and of the horror excited by what 
 was deemed his blasphemous assertion, — that he saw Jesus, as 
 the Son of Man, seated at the right hand of God.* And in 
 the persecution that follows his death, the Apostles remain in 
 Jerusalem apparently undisturbed. 
 
 Up to this period there is no indication in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, or in fact anywhere, of any other difference between 
 the followers of Jesus — not yet known as Christians^ — and the 
 rest of the Jews, than that which arose from the assertion by 
 the one party that Jesus was the Messiah, and its denial by the 
 other. Jesus was to return to the earth, visibly, as he had left 
 it, and the kingdom he was expected to found was to be a re- 
 storation of the kingdom to Israel. And, till his coming, none 
 but Jews or those who submitted to be circumcised were to be 
 
 1 Acts ii., 39. 2 ^cts iii., 25. 3 Acts v., 31, and elsewhere. 
 
 * The speech of Stephen cannot be regarded as historical. Independently of all 
 other grounds of doubt, it had no relation to the charge of which he was accused 
 — that of asserting that Jesus of Nazareth should destroy Jerusalem and put an 
 end to the Mosaic economy. Possibly this was the true charge, and probably he 
 might have given occasion for it. His speech asserts the divine origin, and implies 
 the permanence of the Mosaic dispensation ; since the charge against the rulers 
 is, that having received the law by the disposition of angels, they had not kept 
 it. And if the assertion of the Messiahship of Jesus, and of his resurrection and 
 ascension into heaven, had been the grounds of the death of Stephen, and of the per- 
 secution of the Church, it is not easy to understand how the Apostles could have re- 
 mained in Jerusalem. 
 
 5 This phrase would have been unmeaning at Jerusalem, when almost all the Jews 
 were waiting for the appearance of the Messiah = Christ. The distinction between 
 the brethren and the rest of the Jews was probably expressed by the term Nazarene, 
 or Galilean. 
 
104 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 baptised into His name.^ In accordance with these indications 
 is the speech reported to have been made several years later to 
 Paul at Jerusalem, when he was told that there were many- 
 thousands of Jews who believed, who were all zealots for the 
 law, implying, what in fact necessarily results from their peace- 
 ful abode in Jerusalem, that they regarded the profession of 
 faith in Jesus as compatible with the continued performance of 
 every Jewish rite, and even as justifying, or perhaps requir- 
 ing a peculiar zeal for their observance. It was, indeed, to be 
 expected that they should attach importance to an economy 
 which, as they believed, was soon to be rendered pre-eminent 
 and all-embracing, by the establishment of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven, with Jesus for its monarch, Jerusalem for its capital, 
 and themselves for its chief citizens. And it is only necessary 
 to realize the state of feeling with regard to the obligation and 
 sanctity of the law that then existed in Jerusalem, and through- 
 out Judaea, as exhibited in the History of Josephus, and still 
 more forcibly in the actual revolt of the Jews and the heroic 
 defence of the city, to understand that no sect could dwell there 
 in peace if they had held and taught that the coming kingdom 
 was to be composed principally of Gentiles — that the law of 
 Moses was to be abolished, and that the Jews, of whom the 
 Messiah was to come, were to be excluded. 
 
 The Church at Jerusalem, then, was composed exclusively of 
 Jews, and they could not have resided there unless they had 
 been — which our only authority on the subject declares that 
 they were — zealous for the law. It follows that they understood 
 that the kingdom which Jesus was to found was to be a Jewish 
 kingdom, though open to such Gentiles as might be attracted 
 by its splendour, or awed by its power, and who would enter it 
 by the prescribed method of circumcision. It is, consequently, 
 
 ^ This results necessarily from the account given of the conti'oversy occasioned hy 
 the eating with Cornelius. The distinctive Christian rite was the Lord's Supper, in 
 which all believers would share. And the accusation against Peter was, that he had 
 eaten with one who had been baptised, but not circumcised, implying that in the 
 opinion of the brethren no one before circumcision would be admitted to this meal. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 105 
 
 impossible that a book composed for tbe edification of that 
 Church by one of its members should have contained an ac- 
 count of speeches of Jesus, teaching in language impossible to be 
 misunderstood, that the Kingdom of Heaven should be taken 
 from them, the children of the kingdom, and given to the 
 Gentiles. For, if such had been the case, — if they who had 
 heard Jesus knew that he had uttered such predictions, and if 
 those who had joined the Church after his death had been in- 
 instructed that such had been his teaching — what woidd avail 
 to them their Jewish birth and creed — what that they were 
 descended from the Father of the faithful and possessed the 
 Seal of the Covenant ? Nay — why should they value them- 
 selves upon a nationality that was to be the symbol of exclusion 
 from the kingdom for which they were waiting, or be zealous 
 for a law that was so soon to be abrogated ? ^ We must be 
 certain, consequently, that if the Church of Jerusalem possessed 
 any record of the teaching of Jesus, that record contained no- 
 thing inconsistent with their continued beKef in the restoration 
 of the Jewish kingdom, and the permanence of the Jewish law.^ 
 This reasoning, no doubt, does not necessarily shew that these 
 anti-judaical passages are interpolations in the first Gospel. It 
 may be said that this is not the work of which Papias speaks, 
 but a later compilation made by some unknown disciple at an 
 imcertain date, the author of which drew his materials from 
 more than one source, and embodied not merely the traditions 
 current among the judaizing portion of the disciples, which ex- 
 hibited Jesus in the light of the Jewish Messiah, but those also 
 current among Gentile converts, which prefigured the trial and 
 rejection of the Jews. Possibly this is the case. In that event, 
 however, we should be compelled to assume that the date of the 
 
 1 "WTiich in fact was abrogated, so far as the Churcli was concerned, by the com- 
 mand to make disciples of all nations by the sole ceremony of baptism. 
 
 2 This shows the fallacy of the argument that the fourth Gospel is entitled to 
 authority as containing the traditions of Jerusalem as distinct from those of Galilee. 
 If that Gospel were, in fact, founded upon an independent tradition, it must have 
 sprung up in exclusively Christian circles, and outside of the limits of Palestine. 
 
106 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 first Gospel was later than that we have conjecturally assigned 
 to it — later, in fact, than that of the second : and that the 
 second is really the original narrative upon which the two other 
 Synoptical Gospels have been moulded. 
 
 There is, no doubt, much to be said in favour of this latter 
 view. It may be fairly argued that the second Gospel bears 
 upon its face the marks of having been composed for Gentile 
 churches, and that it would be for such churches that a written 
 history would be first needed. The omission of all the pecu- 
 liarly Jewish elements of the teaching of Jesus — of the j)ro- 
 minence he gives to the Mosaic law as the rule of conduct and 
 the pathway to life eternal — of the limitation of his own mission 
 and that of his disciples to the Jews — of his emphatic declara- 
 tion that he came not to destroy but to fulfil the law — and of 
 the promise to the AjDostles that they should sit in his kingdom 
 as judges of the tribes of Israel — coupled with the occasional 
 explanations of sayings that, though obvious enough to Jews, 
 would have, otherwise, been unintelligible to Gentiles — shew 
 with sufficient clearness that it was destined for these latter. 
 And that while the Jewish brethren, among whom the Apostles 
 generally resided, would need no written record, the Gentiles, 
 who could for the most part hear of Jesus only at second hand, 
 would almost from the beginning require some permanent 
 memorial of the traditions of the Church. And that the omis- 
 sion, in a Gospel composed for such readers, of the anti-judaic 
 elements of the first Gospel — the express predictions that the 
 Jews should be cast out, and their kingdom given to Gentiles — 
 is a proof that it was composed before these assumed predictions 
 had obtained currency in the Church. 
 
 And if we were called upon to decide between the first and 
 the second Gospels in their actual form, it would certainly 
 appear that the preponderance of argument would be in favour 
 of the priority of the second. This conclusion, however, while 
 accounting for some of the phenomena, leaves others unex- 
 plained, and creates almost as many difficulties as it removes. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 107 
 
 We can scarcely, therefore, adopt it, if any other probable solu- 
 tion of the problem can be found. And such a solution seems 
 to be furnished by the suggestion that the second Gospel is, in- 
 deed, founded upon the first, to which additions had been sub- 
 sequently made. 
 
 We are not, perhaps, entitled to rely implicitly upon the tes- 
 timony of Papias. Still, it is difiicult to suppose that during 
 all the years in which the church at Jerusalem remained under 
 the rule of the Apostles, there was no record made for its use 
 of the teaching of Jesus, at least, of the more prominent in- 
 cidents of his public career. Apart from the natural desire 
 of those living in Jerusalem, who had never known him before 
 his visit to that city, to learn the details of his previous history 
 and the doctrines he had taught in GaKlee, it is obvious that 
 the authority attached to his lessons among the members of the 
 infant community would lead to some attempt to reduce these 
 into a definite form and to preserve them by writing. And 
 any report of his discourses would ultimately be accompanied 
 by some statement of the circumstances under which they were 
 delivered, that would gradually tend to embrace all the more 
 prominent incidents of his life. At this time the supremacy of 
 the Church at Jerusalem was firmly established, even if it were 
 not altogether unquestioned. The Gospel, therefore, received 
 in that Church woidd be the leading authority for the life and 
 teaching of Jesus, and the natural source from which all sub- 
 sequent compilers would draw. And it would be carried to all 
 Gentile churches to which messengers from Jerusalem might be 
 sent, as the " Gospel " which the Apostles had been commis- 
 sioned by Jesus to preach. 
 
 If such were the case, there can be no ground for sup- 
 posing the second to be the original Gospel. Our conclusion 
 in this respect might, no doubt, be modified if the first two 
 Gospels stood in no relation of dependence one to the other. 
 Even then, indeed, there would be great diflficulty in sup- 
 posing the second to be the original form of the evangelical 
 
108 THE JESUS OF HISTOKY. 
 
 narrative composed for the use of the Gentiles, for it is clear, 
 from the writings of Paul, that he had everywhere to contend 
 against the judaizing aspect given to the mission of Jesus by 
 those who came from Jerusalem ; and to warn, too often with- 
 out success, the churches he had founded against their tendency 
 to yield to this teaching. If, then, they had any narrative 
 composed for their use, it must have been in accordance 
 with the views that Paul opposed.^ There can be no doubt 
 that either the first is derived from the second, or the second 
 from the first. And, if so, unless we can believe that there 
 was no " Gospel " current in the Church at Jerusalem before 
 the destruction of the city, we cannot, it would seem, avoid 
 the conclusion that the first is the original, and the second an 
 abridged and altered copy. But, then, — as we must assume this 
 abridgement to have been made for the use of later Gentile 
 converts, and to have been adapted to this purpose by the 
 omission of those portions of the first Gospel that give a 
 narrow and exclusive aspect to the teaching of Jesus, and ap- 
 peared to cut off the Gentiles, as such, from a participation in 
 his kingdom, — it is diflicult to assign a reason for the omission 
 of those passages that predict the calling in of the Gentiles 
 and the rejection of the Jews. The only probable supposition 
 appears to be, that they did not form a part of the first Gospel 
 at the time that the second was composed. 
 
 We may perhaps conclude that the collection of the sayings 
 of Jesus attributed to Matthew was not a private work, and 
 that it was not completed at once. Probably indeed the mode 
 
 ' It has often been assumed, almost as a matter of course, that the first Gospel 
 for the Gentiles would soften down the judaical aspect of the teaching of Jesus, and 
 rather tend to depreciate the law. The very reverse would have been the case, unless 
 wc suppose that there was no such Gospel written until after the dispersion of the 
 Church at Jerusalem, for the main object of that Church was to impose the law upon 
 all new converts, and no Gospel would be likely to possess any authority without its 
 sanction. "We may infer that those who "troubled" the Church at Galatia, who 
 "came from James" to Antioch, who brought "letters of commendation" to the 
 Church at Corinth, based their doctrines upon the report of the Apostle as to what 
 was the teaching of Jesus, and, if so, it was probably written for the purposes of 
 authentication. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 109 
 
 of its formation was analagoas to that of tlie Koran — fresh 
 portions being added from time to time as circimistances ap- 
 peared to demand them. When, after the death of Jesus, the 
 new society began to acquire numbers and consistency, it would 
 be necessary to have some rules for its guidance ; and these 
 would be naturally derived from the lessons he had taught in 
 his lifetime. In his public discourses in Galilee, in his private 
 communications to the disciples, in his answers to his adversaries, 
 he had furnished precepts regulating the conduct to be pursued 
 by those who were desirous to prepare themselves for entering 
 the kingdom, and had also laid down principles capable of 
 being applied in all ordinary contingencies. And these would 
 probably be committed to writing for the guidance of the 
 brethren. To this first period we may no doubt refer the 
 greater part of the Sermon on the Mount, many of the 
 parables relating to the Kingdom of Heaven, the rule as to 
 divorce, and the command to render unto Caesar the things that 
 are Caesar's. And then, as new questions arose, whether con- 
 nected with the relations of the society to its own members, or 
 to the Gentiles, or to the law, we may conceive that when the 
 Apostles met for the purpose of deciding upon the course to be 
 pursued, one of the first enquiries would be whether Jesus in 
 his life time had said anything applicable to the point in 
 dispute. If any such saying was remembered by one of their 
 number that commended itself to the recollection of the rest, 
 this would be received as decisive, and would be added to 
 the record. ]S^o report of the teaching of Jesus woidd be likely 
 to possess any authority among the brethren, or would even be 
 allowed to circulate, unless it was sanctioned by the Apostles as 
 a body. And it is very probable that Matthew, whose pre- 
 vious avocations would make him a readier scribe than the 
 others, might act as amanuensis, or, as we should now say, 
 secretary to his colleagues. 
 
 Some such hypothesis as this appears to be required in order 
 to account for the peculiar character of many of the passages, 
 
110 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 wliich have little or no meaning as attributed to Jesus at the 
 time they are supposed to have been spoken, but have an 
 obvious bearing uj)on questions that we know to have arisen 
 afterwards. We may allow that all these additions were made 
 in good faith and in a full belief in their accuracy, though in 
 fact they must have been deeply tinged by the feeling of the 
 moment. It would carry us beyond our present purpose to 
 attempt to exhibit the traces of this process in detail. Some 
 will present themselves in the course of our subsequent investi- 
 gations. And a careful analysis of the whole Grospel, even with 
 our imperfect knowledge of the circumstances of the infant com- 
 munity, would probably enable us to assign a place to nearly 
 all the sayings recorded, excepting in those instances where 
 they plainly appear to have been interpolated.^ 
 
 If we might add one conjecture to the many that have been 
 made upon this subject, it would be that the original of the first 
 Gospel was a combination of the "Logia" of Matthew and the 
 "Memorabilia" of Mark, composed in Greek almost immediately 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem — the Logia having been 
 completed a year or two previously; — that the second Gospel, 
 which we probably possess almost in its original form, was 
 abridged from this a few years later for the use of Gentile 
 converts, who began to find some portions of the original Gos- 
 pel unsuitable ; — that the third was a free compilation from the 
 two others, and from independent sources, about the beginning 
 of the second century ; — and that the first has subsequently been 
 largely interpolated. This view, at least, appears to satisfy all 
 the conditions of the problem. 
 
 1 There is one to which we may now refer — the latter part of the answer of Jesus 
 to the disciples of John when they enquire the reason for the neglect of fasting by 
 his disciples (Matt, ix., 15, " The time shall come when the bridegroom is taken from 
 them and then they shall fast"). This, as reported, is inconsistent with the position of 
 Jesus at the time and with his subsequent conduct, and can hardly be regarded as 
 anything but a justification of the practice of fasting by the brethren, in opposition 
 to the rule observed and enforced by Jesus himself. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PROBABILITIES. 
 
 There remain some general considerations affecting the credi- 
 bility of the Gospel narratives, principally in connection with the 
 miracles related, and the inferences which we may draw as to 
 the character of the mission and teaching of Jesus from the sub- 
 sequent history of the Church, to which we may shortly refer. 
 
 The question of miracle has two aspects — theological and 
 evidential. The one regards the orthodox view of the nature 
 of Jesus ; the other, the testimony upon which the assumed 
 miracle rests. Under the former aspect, however, it may be 
 a question how far the common view is well founded. The 
 miracles related to have been wrought by Jesus are frequently 
 referred to as a proof of his superhuman, or of his divine 
 nature. And, at the same time, it is admitted — we should 
 rather say asserted — that similar miracles were performed by 
 individuals, who, like Peter and Paul, were mere men, having 
 no miraculous power in themselves. If, indeed, it could be 
 contended that the performance of miracles was the result 
 of prerogative faculty, possessed by Jesus by virtue of his 
 divinity, it might be possible to draw conclusions from the 
 assertion or denial of this faculty that would not be appli- 
 cable to miracles supposed to have been performed by others, 
 who were men and nothing more. As, however, the same 
 authority that testifies to the working of miracles by Jesus, 
 testifies also to the working of similar miracles by those 
 who have no pretensions to divinity, it is clear that ^such 
 
112 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 acts cannot be regarded as manifesting the divine nature 
 of their performer; and, consequently, that to doubt or deny 
 them does not really affect the grounds upon which it is believed 
 that Jesus was God. If we are convinced, by a perusal of the 
 New Testament narratives, that Jesus cast out devils, cured 
 those that were lunatic, gave sight to the blind, strength to 
 the lame, and life to the dead, — this is no proof of his God- 
 head. We cannot, indeed, regard these acts as even related 
 to his Godhead, so long as we believe, upon the same evidence, 
 that miracles of the same kind were wrought by the Apostles ; 
 still less if we believe, with the Church of Rome, that similar 
 miracles continue to be wrought to the present day. These 
 acts, therefore, are a part of his human life ; of what he did 
 as a man — as a teacher sent from God, and " approved of God, 
 by miracles, and wonders, and signs that God did by him." 
 And, as such, though they may be referred to in proof of his 
 doctrine, for those to whom such proof is valid, they have no 
 connection with the orthodox view as to his nature. 
 
 The question thus presented for our solution, apart from 
 any d priori objections to miracles in themselves, which may be 
 waived for the present, is altogether one of the weight of evi- 
 dence. It rests upon the same grounds, and must be decided 
 by the same tests as would be applied to any other historical 
 question. And the form it must ultimately assume is this. Is 
 the amount of testimony to any alleged miracle such as to out- 
 weigh the antecedent improbability arising out of the nature of 
 the occurrence. If it is not, we need not pursue the investi- 
 gation further. If it is, we should then be compelled to enquire 
 whether the facts related necessarily implied a violation of the 
 order of Nature. And only upon the assumption of its being 
 impossible otherwise to account for them, should we have to dis- 
 cuss the question whether any testimony could be sufficient to 
 prove such a violation. 
 
 Sometimes the question has been argued as though there 
 was an inconsistency in such a course on the part of any one 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 113 
 
 who was not prepared to reject the Gospel history through- 
 out, if he does not accept the truth of every event it relates, 
 miracles included.' It is said that we have no right to afford a 
 qualified belief to these statements, and that we are bound to 
 accept or reject them as a whole. This, however, is not the 
 practice of mankind in their ordinary affairs. On the contrary, 
 they have learned that there is probably no narrative so accu- 
 rate as that some particulars will not be admitted owing to 
 imperfect knowledge, or some inserted that are due, in part at 
 least, to the imagination of the relator ; and that scarcely any 
 one is so entirely false as not to have some element of fact for 
 its basis. In all cases, therefore, men instinctively make such 
 corrections of the story as their knowledge of surrounding cir- 
 cumstances, or of the mental bias of the narrator, or their ideas 
 of probability may suggest, without for a moment suspecting 
 that they are acting inconsistently. And if this is the case 
 with regard to contemporary narratives, much more are such 
 corrections needed in reference to histories composed, partly 
 from recollection and partly from hearsay, twenty to thirty 
 years after the events they relate, and in a different place from 
 that in which they had happened. 
 
 Take, then, the first Gospel. The original appears from 
 internal evidence to have assumed its complete form somewhere 
 about thirty years after the death of Jesus, and to have repre- 
 sented the current tradition in the Church. From the circum- 
 stance that Jerusalem was up to that time the residence of the 
 Apostles, and the centre of the Church, it was probably com- 
 posed there for the use of the new converts. The events it 
 relates took place during the life of Jesus, and for the most 
 part in Galilee. It can hardly be contended that, looking 
 upon this as a history, we should not be justified in estimating 
 the credit to which it is entitled by a consideration of the pro- 
 bability of the events related, and in according belief to the 
 
 1 Among others, by the late Isaac Taylor in his " Eestoration of Belief." 
 
 8 
 
114 THE JESUS OF HISTORY, 
 
 writer in some particulars, while supposing him to have been 
 mistaken or misinformed in others. And, with regard to the 
 corroboration that the accounts of miracles in the first Gospel 
 may appear to derive from the circumstance of their being 
 repeated, or of similar incidents being related, in one or more 
 of the others, it is a very obvious remark, but one that seems 
 scarcely to have occurred to orthodox writers, that, when two 
 or more narratives bear the mark of being copied, the one from 
 the other, the events they relate have no greater claim to be 
 regarded as authentic because of their agreement, and that, 
 when they relate different events, each such event rests solely 
 upon the authority of the one writer, subject to such deductions 
 as may be due to the circumstance that others in writing the 
 same biography have either not known, or not thought it im- 
 portant, to record the occurrence. And almost every miracle 
 recorded in the Gospels falls within the one class or the 
 other. 
 
 The evidence, then, in support of the actual performance of 
 the miracles attributed to Jesus is, that thirty years after his 
 death an account of miracles alleged to have been wrought by 
 him in Galilee was current in Jerusalem among the members of 
 the sect that regarded him as the Messiah. From this it is 
 argued that it was sanctioned by James and those of the 
 Apostles who then resided there, and, consequently, has all the 
 weight due to the report of eye-witnesses. How far the latter 
 inference is well founded must be considered an open question. 
 There is certainly nothing in the Epistle of James or in the 
 First Epistle of Peter ^ to show that they knew of any miracle 
 wrought by Jesus. And this, if we could accept these Epistles 
 as genuine, would be a clear proof that their claim in his behalf 
 to the faith of the Church was not necessarily founded upon 
 his exercise of miraculous power. Assuming, however, that 
 
 • "We may leave out of consideration the Second Epistle of Peter, as a history 
 shown by both internal and external evidence to belong to the latter half of the 
 second century. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 115 
 
 the Apostles in Jerusalem, Peter and James and John, those 
 who " seemed to be pillars," had known and sanctioned these 
 statements, we may still doubt how far that sanction implies 
 their personal guarantee to the accuracy of every incident 
 related. It is not absolutely unprecedented in ecclesiastical 
 history that the leaders of a movement should sanction and 
 encourage reports of marvels which, though not true, were 
 nevertheless adapted to stimulate the zeal of their followers, 
 and thus to accelerate the progress of their cause. And even 
 if they had thus attested the accuracy of the statements, it 
 may still be a question how far their attestation would com- 
 pel us to believe in the reality of occurrences that are repre- 
 sented as violating the order of nature. The assumption that 
 they did so is, however, purely gratuitous. It rests upon no 
 evidence. And it is scarcely consistent with the variations 
 which the history so speedily underwent. 
 
 Admitting then, as we fully admit, the good faith of the 
 author of the first Gospel — that he invented nothing and in- 
 serted nothing that was not currently reported among the 
 brethren, can we have such confidence in his judgment, or in 
 the judgment and accuracy of those from whose mouths he 
 collected his materials, as to be able to rely implicitly upon his 
 history, even where he confines himself within the limits of the 
 natural ? Is it not rather a matter of every-day experience 
 that, in the course of transmission from mouth to mouth, the 
 form and character of events are changed ; partly as the result 
 of unconscious variation in every fresh repetition, partly by 
 the invention of incidents which, because they, as it were, 
 round off the story and give it a greater appearance of consis- 
 tency or completeness, it is assumed must have happened ; and 
 partly under the influence of feelings that seek to aggrandize 
 the object of affection or veneration, or of both. And, then, 
 these causes of change, and therefore of error, will so blend 
 with each other that it will be always difficult, and often im- 
 possible, to suggest the probable share of each in producing 
 
116 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 the ultimate result. There are abundant instances of the utter 
 untruthfulness of stories that find their way into history, and 
 are, for a time, regarded as unquestioned truths. And many 
 of these will, probably, be received as such by posterity, in 
 spite of their detection and exposure, because they harmonize 
 with the prevailing sentiment of the nation or class to which 
 they were originally addressed. 
 
 The story told by Foxe, in his "Book of Martyrs," of ''one 
 Greenwood," who, as a perjured person and a great persecutor, 
 had been struck dead by the hand of God, and the use made 
 of it by a preacher, as. an illustration of divine justice, in a 
 sermon that he preached in the hearing of Greenwood himself, 
 who, by his living presence, offered a convincing practical re- 
 futation of its truth, has been preserved for us in a legal 
 decision.^ The case of the Vengeur ; the accounts circulated 
 through the press of the mutilations of Englishmen in India 
 during the Sepoy mutiny ; the innumerable apocryphal anec- 
 dotes current, about half a century ago in England, with regard 
 to the Duke of Wellington, — and, in France, with regard to the 
 first Napoleon, shew the facility with which, even among con- 
 temporaries, stories spring up and obtain credence, for which, 
 in their actual form, there is no foundation whatever. Or com- 
 pare Napier's History of the Peninsular "War with Thiers' 
 narrative of the same event, — or the accounts of the Battle of 
 Waterloo, according as the author is English or French or 
 Prussian, and it will be easy to understand that even access 
 to original documents, and the ordeal of publicity, afibrd no 
 guarantee of a complete and reliable history, but that the nar- 
 rative will take its colour from the bias of the writer or of the 
 authorities he follows, or of those for whom it is written, and 
 whom consequently it must please. And, there is no reason to 
 believe, that the various influences that shape tradition, and 
 recount facts, and colour narratives, were less active or powerful 
 
 > C. 20 : Jar. 21, Trick's Case. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 117 
 
 during tlie first quarter of a century after the death of Jesus 
 than they are now. 
 
 Nor must we forget, in estimating the e£Fect of these in- 
 fluences, how strong was the tendency to ascribe every un- 
 wonted occurrence to supernatural causes, and to attribute the 
 power of working miracles to distinguished men. It was not 
 merely Jesus and the Apostles that were believed by the early 
 Christians to have had this power; for, apai't from its con- 
 tinuing exercise within the Church, Justin^ attributes a similar 
 power to Simon Magus, and to his successor, Menander, — the 
 difference being, that in the one case the wonderful works are 
 ascribed to the divine help, and in the other to the agency of 
 e\al spirits. The miracles, too, ascribed to Vespasian and to 
 Apollonius of Tyana, are additional illustrations of the same 
 tendency, which is nowhere more signally displayed than in 
 the belief — then almost universal — that by magical incantations 
 men might even control the heavenly bodies and the elements. 
 It is true that, in the centres of ancient civilization, a small 
 class had raised itself above the influence of these ideas, and 
 could smile at the popular credulity ; but their numbers were 
 few and their influence limited. Outside of that narrow circle 
 all the old beliefs subsisted. The last thing that would have 
 occurred to an ordinary mind, whether Jew or Grentile, would 
 have been to attempt a rational explanation of unusual oc- 
 currences — sudden recoveries from sickness, sudden or unusual 
 forms of death, lunacy, epilepsy, uncommon or widely prevail- 
 ing diseases, famines, earthquakes, meteors, comets — these were 
 all attributed to the direct operation of imseen powers. Super- 
 natural agency, in fact, was looked upon as the complement of 
 nature, and there was no distinct or intelligible boundary be- 
 tween them. Whatever was exceptional was on that very ac- 
 count regarded as, probably, supernatural. In such an atmo- 
 sphere it would be almost a matter of course that the early 
 
 1 Eusebius, H. E., Book II., c. 13. 
 
118 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 disciples should ascribe to Jesus tlie performance of miracles, 
 and that such miracles should be accepted without enquiry by 
 the Church. 
 
 There are still two other considerations that it is incumbent 
 upon us to keep in mind when we attempt to draw conclusions 
 from the Gospel histories. In the first place, the original 
 disciples belonged almost exclusively to the lower classes. 
 " Not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many 
 noble," were numbered in their ranks. They would have, con- 
 sequently, the habits and feelings and prejudices of their class. 
 They would neither possess the wider range of thought result- 
 ing from an acquaintance, even superficial, with literature or 
 philosophy — nor the practical experience of men and things 
 that the management of large afiairs tends to supply. They 
 might have — many, no doubt, had — deep spiritual insight and 
 an elevated piety. And some of them must have possessed more 
 than ordinary faculties of organization and management. But 
 the majority — those among whom the traditions were formed 
 and for whom the Gospels were originally composed — were in 
 no otherwise distinguished from the class to which they be- 
 longed than by their belief in Jesus. There would, therefore, 
 be naturally — we might almost say necessarily — a misconcep- 
 tion of the motives of their rulers, and a disposition to attribute 
 public events to petty intrigues or to mere personal motives. 
 Assuming that the feelings of the class did not tinge their re- 
 port of the sayings of Jesus himself, which some among them 
 had heard — and this is perhaps more than we have a right to 
 assume — we must still conclude that they were not inoperative 
 in shaping their description of the conduct of his enemies. 
 The relations we have received sprung up in the midst of a 
 community whose members were poor, ignorant, and enthu- 
 siastic ; and, regarded as materials for history, must be subject 
 to a corresponding deduction. 
 
 And, again, these relations never encountered the test of 
 publicity until long after the death of the generation that wit - 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY, 119 
 
 nessed tlie events they describe. The Christian books, where- 
 ever composed, belonged to Christians, and were for many years 
 entirely confined to the brethren.^ There is not a trace in Jew- 
 ish or heathen literature of the existence of these books, of the 
 incidents they relate, or of the doctrines they teach. Those who 
 wrote had no fear of contradiction, and there was no necessity 
 for such an investigation into the actual facts as might secure 
 them against hostile criticism. They were free to give such a 
 character to their work as should accord with their own object 
 in writing, or as might harmonise with the sentiment of those 
 for whom they wrote. And, however honest they might be in 
 intention, this immunity from criticism and contradiction re- 
 moved one of the most powerful incentives to scrupulous ac- 
 curacy. It is impossible, therefore, to place the same reliance 
 upon works thus composed that we should yield to works which, 
 by challenging hostile examination, furnished, at least, a pre- 
 sumption that their writers believed they could stand that test. 
 The questions we have thus been discussing are, however, 
 generally argued by orthodox writers, as though the first gene- 
 ration of Christians possessed some peculiar and exceptional 
 qualities that rendered them inaccessible to the ordinary weak- 
 nesses of humanity, which would, therefore, be to us a 
 guarantee that whatever they accepted as true, might safely 
 be received as true by ourselves. Not such is the picture that 
 has been drawn for us by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. It 
 is not as the spotless bride of the lamb — humble, reverend, 
 loving, truthful, waiting in patient but joyous anticipation for 
 the expected appearance of the heavenly bridegroom — that the 
 Church is revealed to us in his writings; though it is, in no 
 smaU degree, to .his elevated conception and glowing description 
 of the Christian ideal that the prevalent errors upon this subject 
 are due. On the contrary, the actual churches he addresses are 
 
 1 The Sacred books of the Christians were not published to the world Lq general, 
 but were reserved and precious possessions of the believing societies. (Alford's N. T. 
 for English Eeaders, Introduct. Chap. i. sect. v. 1). 
 
120 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 torn by dissensions ; underrating the importance of the es- 
 sentially Christian virtues, and valuing themselves upon the 
 possession of so-called spiritual gifts, the exhibition of which 
 might lead a bystander to believe them mad ; easily led astray ; 
 greedy of novelty, and ready to accept fables for truth ; attach- 
 ing importance to outward observances, days and times and 
 ceremonies ; and clutching, as it were, at some legal support 
 because they were unable to maintain themselves in the elevated 
 region into which he had for the moment raised them. Such 
 were the Gentile churches. And, with regard to the Church 
 at Jerusalem, we know from the same writings that it was not 
 merely the stronghold of the Judaical party, but that it strove 
 actively to impose the obligations of the Jewish law upon all 
 believers, and even denied that any could enter the kingdom of 
 heaven excepting through the gate of the law. 
 
 On the one side "Vfas freedom always ready to degenerate into 
 lawlessness, and, in the reaction against this tendency, prepared 
 to ally itself with^ceremonialism ; and, on the other, a fanatical 
 legalism, investing forms with a sacredness that made them a 
 substitute for the weightier matters of the law. And, above 
 these, were Paul on the one hand, and James on the other, 
 striving, and too often ineffectually, to impress from their 
 different points of view the essential truths they held in 
 common. 
 
 But, when such were the churches, can we be quite sure that 
 their leaders were altogether superior to these disturbing influ- 
 ences ? Are we not rather driven to the conclusion that they also, 
 "men of like passions" with those whom they taught, proved this 
 community of weakness by occasional lapses into error, and even 
 by some prevailing errors being mingled with and alloying the 
 truths they held. Such, at least, appears to be the lesson which 
 any one who can read the New Testament freed from the pre- 
 conceptions that result from early training, must learn from its 
 perusal. And, at least, this is clear, that the currency of a nar- 
 rative among the members of such a Church furnishes no ground 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 121 
 
 for our accepting it either as guaranteed by the Apostles, or as 
 absolutely true. 
 
 There is yet another question that we may shortly examine 
 before proceeding with our attempt to depict the life of Jesus. 
 Can we, from the course of events in the Church itself, form any 
 probable conclusion as to the nature of His teaching ? Was it 
 in accordance with the view taken by the twelve, and by the 
 Church at Jerusalem, or with that taken by Paul ? Or was it 
 of a composite character, containing elements capable of being 
 assimilated by both, and thus laying the foundation of the 
 divisions that actually occurred? If we adopt the Synoptical 
 Gospels as a faithful record of the teaching of Jesus, the latter 
 is the case. He would have given a direct sanction to those 
 of his disciples who refused to recognize Grentile converts unless 
 they conformed to all the requirements of the Jewish law, and 
 he would, by anticipation, have condemned Paid, who taught 
 the nullity of these rites and the insignificance of ceremonial 
 observances. Por, had he not said, speaking to Jews, " Think 
 " not I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. I am 
 " not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, 
 " till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise 
 " pass from the law till all (things) be fulfilled. Whosoever, 
 " therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and 
 " shall teach men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of 
 " Heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same 
 " shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." And 
 had he not, by telling his disciples to pray that their flight 
 might not be on the Sabbath day, implied that the law 
 would continue to be binding upon them? And, on the other 
 hand, had he not taught in plain terms the rejection of the 
 Jews and admission of the Gentiles unconditionally ; and, in 
 his final interview with his apostles, had he not left it to them 
 as his last emphatic command, that they should make disciples 
 
122 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 of all nations, by baptizing tbem into tbe name of tbe Fatter 
 and of tbe Son and of tbe Holy Gbost ? And in tbese utterances 
 migbt be found an abundant authority for all tbat Paul preacbed 
 as bis Gospel, or claimed on bebalf of bis converts. 
 
 This solution, bowever, suggests two furtber questions. Is it 
 probable tbat tbe same person sbould bave taught so emphati- 
 cally doctrines thus opposed to each other ? — and. How did it 
 happen that tbe Apostles who bad heard of all these discourses 
 were influenced by those of tbe former class only, and appear 
 to bave been altogether ignorant of the latter ? Tbe former 
 question may be passed over for the present. Many circum- 
 stances of time and place and audience, of which we are now 
 ignorant, may bave afiected the character of the teaching of 
 Jesus, or there may bave been a development of his own views. 
 We should bave no right, therefore, to refuse to believe upon 
 adequate evidence tbat both doctrines were taught, in spite of 
 their apparent or even real inconsistency. Tbe latter question 
 is one of much greater weight and difficulty, and demands a 
 careful investigation. 
 
 We need not repeat what we bave already said as to the 
 character of tbe Acts of the Apostles. No one can read it 
 without seeing that, according to the views of the writer, tbe 
 very admission of Gentiles into the society was a question of 
 great doubt, and that tbe terms upon which they were to be 
 admitted were assumed at first as a matter of course to be tbat 
 they should submit to all the requirements of the law ; and 
 that tbese terms were only modified after grave deliberation 
 by the Apostles with the sanction of tbe brethren. It is also 
 further noticeable tbat neither in the Epistles of Paul, nor in 
 tbe report of tbe discussions at Jerusalem, nor, in fact, through- 
 out the Acts, is there one reference to any saying of Jesus on 
 the subject. This is not, perhaps, singular in the case of Paul, 
 who bad never known Jesus, and who boasts that be learned 
 nothing on the subject from those who had known him ; but it 
 is surely significant on the part of the author of tbe Acts. It 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 123 
 
 is, at least, difficult to understand that Peter should be repre- 
 sented as requiring an enigmatical vision, and the actual out- 
 pouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, before he could ven- 
 ture to baptise him ; and the Apostles described as prefacing 
 their alleged decision by the statement, that it seemed good to 
 the Holy Spirit and to them, if there had been anything in 
 the teaching of Jesus himself, capable of being appealed to as 
 an authority with the stricter brethren, that had authorised 
 such a relaxation. 
 
 And it must not be forgotten that Stephen, the first martyr, 
 who would seem to have suffered for blasphemies against the 
 holy place and the law — these blasphemies being a prediction 
 that Jesus should destroy the place and change the customs 
 that Moses committed unto them (this at least was the charge 
 stated to have been made against him) — had not, so far as 
 appears, any more than Paul, known Jesus ; and that after his 
 death the Apostles are described as remaining in peace at Jeru- 
 salem. This would hardly have occurred, or have been reported 
 to have occurred, if the doctrines attributed to Stephen had 
 truly represented the teaching of the Apostles themselves ; for, 
 in that case, they would, as the recognised heads of the new 
 society, have been the principal objects of attack. The only 
 solution seems to be that the Apostles "had not so heard 
 Jesus." 
 
 But, then, if in fact the Apostles who had accompanied the foot- 
 steps of Jesus throughout the whole of his career — who had been 
 themselves appointed to announce the good news of the King- 
 dom of Heaven, and been furnished with the requisite instruc- 
 tions for their mission, and had afterwards shared all his various 
 fortunes up to the very moment of his being betrayed into the 
 hands of his enemies — if they, the selected depositaries of his 
 doctrine, companions of his life, and spectators of his miracles, 
 so understood him, what ground can there be for assuming that 
 any other representation of his teaching is accurate ? We have, 
 in truth, no right to suppose that the view taken by the friends 
 
124 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 and followers of Jesus, immediately after his death, of the lessons 
 he taught, and the conditions he prescribed for admission into 
 the privileges of his kingdom, was erroneous. And if, in de- 
 fiance of probability, we adopt that supposition, in order to save 
 the doctrine of Jesus at the expense of the understanding or 
 liberality of the Apostles, we can, obviously, have no security 
 for the truth of the narrations in which those doctrines have 
 been preserved, and which are presumed to be derived from the 
 report of these very men. 
 
 The orthodox view requires us to suppose that Jesus taught 
 the rejection of the Jews and the reception of the Gentiles; 
 that he announced the utter unimportance of place — especially 
 of the sacred sites of Jewish and Samaritan worship, Jerusalem 
 and Gerizim, and, by implication, of their ritual also — to the 
 true worship of Jehovah ; that, in his final instructions to the 
 Apostles, after his resurrection, he had told them to make 
 disciples of all nations (=Gentiles), imposing no other cere- 
 mony of initiation than that of baptism; and, yet, that imme- 
 diately after his ascension these lessons were forgotten or dis- 
 regarded by those to whom they were addressed, and were only 
 introduced into the Church by Stephen the Hellenist, and Saul 
 the Cilician ; the former of whom expiated the too daring in- 
 novation by his death, and the latter by the ceaseless persecu- 
 tion of which his own letters contain the touching and graphic 
 description. And neither of these men had, so far as we know, 
 ever seen Jesus in his lifetime ; and the latter emphatically 
 disclaims having derived his doctrine from the Apostles. And 
 the last we hear of the brethren at Jerusalem in the New Tes- 
 tament is that James, as the head of this, the Mother Church, 
 with the approval of his colleagues, recommends Paul to prove 
 by some public act his recognition of the authority of the 
 Jewish law, and his submission to its requirements ; showing 
 the unaltered convictions of what we may term the Apostolical 
 College upon the subject. And, at this time, nearly thirty years 
 had elapsed since the death of Jesus. It is difficult to accept this 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 125 
 
 view. Impossible, excepting upon the hypothesis of M. Renan 
 that the Apostles were men of narrow intellect and low feelings, 
 who could, we must suppose, remember, but could neither im- 
 derstand nor practise the lessons of their Master. But if we 
 accept this hypothesis, and suppose that during this long period 
 the teachings of Jesus were, practically, so ignored or forgotten 
 that it required the material facts of the destruction of the 
 Temple and the dispersion of the nation to recall them to 
 memory, or to show their true bearing, it is at least probable 
 that their reproduction was owing to the imagination rather 
 than to the recollection of the narrators ; and it is even certain 
 that their precise form was determined by the circumstances 
 under which they were produced. 
 
 The unquestioned facts appear to be, on the one hand, that 
 up to a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
 Apostles who had known Jesus continued to regard the law as 
 binding — Jerusalem as the holy city and the seat of the future 
 Messianic Kingdom — the Jews as the inheritors of the promises 
 — and the initiated Grentiles as only admitted to share in the 
 anticipated privileges on condition of certain ceremonial ob- 
 servances or abstinences. And, on the other hand, that in the 
 accounts we possess of the life of Jesus, he is represented as 
 contradicting with abundant distinctness all of these views. 
 We have, therefore, to enquire whether it is more probable that 
 the belief of the Apostles was at variance with the plain teach- 
 ing of their Master, or that the Gospels in which that teaching 
 has been recorded have been modified to suit the event ; and 
 the latter is surely the case. When we have to decide whether 
 to draw an inference from the actual conduct of men at the 
 time, or from anonymous narratives composed thirty or seventy 
 or one hundred years after, and the earliest of which have been 
 exposed to indefinite alterations, few, in ordinary cases, could 
 hesitate for a moment in choosing the former. If the result is 
 difierent in the present case, this is to be attributed, in part, to 
 the circumstance that our views of the proceedings of the 
 
126 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Apostles are coloured by tlie impression we have received from 
 the previous perusal of the four Grospels, and from the existing 
 practice of the Church ; and, in part, to the prevailing sentiment 
 which would rather assume error and imperfection in the earlier 
 views of the Apostles, than allow that there is any substantial 
 inaccuracy in the report of the words of Jesus contained in the 
 Gospels. Few, therefore, realise the fact that there is any dis- 
 crepancy between the conduct of the Apostles and the commands 
 of Jesus ; and those who do, nearly all assume that it must have 
 arisen from some mistake on the part of the Apostles. 
 
 In support of the last assumption it has been argued that it 
 is impossible to understand from what source the ultimate views 
 of the Church upon this subject were derived, or to what 
 influence their triumph is to be attributed, if they had not been 
 at first derived from Jesus, or at least fairly deducible from his 
 teaching. It has been said, and with much apparent force, 
 that, inasmuch as the Christian society was founded upon a 
 belief in Jesus which had reference not merely to what he did 
 but to what he taught, it would have been impossible to have 
 secured a hearing for those views if they were in fact new, and 
 not in accordance with the primitive tradition. This argument 
 is entitled to careful consideration, but there are two circum- 
 stances that appear to deprive it of much of its force. The 
 one, to which reference has been already made, is, that neither 
 in the writings of Paul nor in the Acts of the Apostles do 
 we find any reference to the words of Jesus as bearing upon 
 the controversy. And the other is, that, in fact, the Jewish 
 portion of the Church gradually became separated from the 
 Gentile, chiefly, if not entirely, upon the ground that they 
 considered the prevailing doctrines as innovations upon the 
 primitive faith. The one fact shows that the enlarged views 
 which finally prevailed might be supported upon grounds of 
 general reason, and by arguments drawn from the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, apart from any supposed direct teaching of Jesus ; 
 and the other that there was in reality a protest against these 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 127 
 
 views on the part of tlie representatives of tlie Church, at 
 Jerusalem, which resulted in their being in the end regarded 
 as heretics. The prevalence of these doctrines among the 
 Gentile churches, therefore, is in itself no proof that they were 
 taught in the first instance by Jesus ; while their rejection by 
 the Jewish brethren is scarcely consistent with the idea that 
 they had formed part of the original apostolical tradition. 
 And it is, at least, as easy to understand how expressions that 
 he had never uttered should have been ascribed to Jesus for 
 the purpose of accrediting innovations that could be no longer 
 resisted, as it is to account for the omission in the earliest con- 
 troversies of all reference to such expressions, or for the fact 
 that, in the face of such expressions, recorded in the earliest 
 Christian writings, any part of the Church should have per- 
 sisted in a system of exclusion which their Master had so 
 plainly condemned. 
 
 Still, it is said, the hostility of the Chief Priests and Pharisees 
 is inexplicable upon the hypothesis that the teaching of Jesus 
 was, in fact, such as we have represented. "Without attempting, 
 at present, to determine whether we can satisfactorily account 
 for the persecution and death of Jesus, we may, at least, assert 
 that the account in the Synoptical Gospels furnishes no support 
 to the ordinary view. It is quite certain that those who are 
 represented as suborning false witnesses against Jesus, and as 
 unable to find any other ground of accusation than the alleged 
 statement with regard to the destruction and rebuilding of the 
 Temple, could not be supposed to be aware of anything said by 
 him to the efiect that the law was of only temporary obligation, 
 and that the Jews were to be excluded from the Kingdom of 
 Heaven. If Stephen was stoned upon such a charge, it would 
 certainly have been sufiicient to secure the condemnation of 
 Jesus. And no false witnesses would, in that case, have been 
 necessary. The accounts of the trial scene in all the Gospels, 
 however, imply that Jesus had neither done nor taught any- 
 thing that could be truly alleged as a ground for his condemna- 
 
128 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 tion by the Sanliedrim. They, therefore, so far as any inference 
 can be drawn from them, supj)ort the view of the teaching of 
 Jesus, in this respect, that we have derived from the after con- 
 duct of the Apostles. 
 
BOOK II. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY. 
 
 At the very commencement of the Gospel narratives we are 
 met by an almost insuperable difficulty. The first two chapters, 
 both of the first and of the third Gospels, agree in representing 
 Jesus as having been conceived by, if not naturally the son of, a 
 yet unwedded mother, and as having been bom at Bethlehem. 
 In every other portion of their narrative, however, these 
 chapters difier ; if not to the extent of absolutely contradict- 
 ing each other, still so, far that it has taxed the utmost skiU 
 of harmonists to shew their possible agreement.^ And cer- 
 tainly no one who reads the account in the first Gospel could 
 suppose, that Joseph and Mary had come to Bethlehem from 
 their distant home in Galilee in obedience to a Roman ordi- 
 nance, or that angels had announced the miraculous birth to 
 shepherds abiding in the field, who had proclaimed the news 
 abroad, or that the child Jesus had been duly presented in the 
 Temple, and there publicly recognized by two eminent persons 
 
 1 Dean Alford, N. T. for English Readers, admits that the narratives, as they 
 stand, are contradictory, but he, nevertheless, believes both. He is even severe upon 
 the harmonists who attempt to frame schemes of reconciliation between the two, on 
 account of the triumph they thus furnish to "Mie enemies of our faith ;" a phrase 
 which seems to include all that believe less than he does. The Dean, however, for- 
 gets that the faith which can believe two (apparently) contradictory propositions in 
 matters of fact, is a very rare gift, and that, for one who is so endowed, there are 
 thousands who can be satisfied with a plausible, though demonstrably, false explana- 
 tion. To this latter class the despised harmonists render a real service. 
 
130 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 as the Messiah, or that he had then returned with his parents 
 to Nazareth, whence they came up in accordance with the re- 
 quirements of the law at regular intervals to Jerusalem. 
 
 As little, too, would the reader of the third Gospel imagine 
 that Magians from the East, who had seen the Star of the Mes- 
 siah, and had come to worship him, threw the Court of Herod 
 and the people of Jerusalem into trouble by their announcement 
 — or that Herod, in the vain hope of slaying the infant King 
 of the Jews, had slaughtered all the infants of Bethlehem — or 
 that Joseph and Mary had fled to Egypt, carrying Jesus with 
 them, and had only returned on being miraculously informed of 
 the death of Herod — or that they returned with the purpose of 
 settling in Judaea, from which they were dissuaded by the fear 
 of Archelaus, who reigned in the place of his father — or that they 
 only, at last, fixed upon Nazareth as their home, in obedience 
 to another miraculous intimation. In the one picture, all is peace 
 and hope — in the other, all is violence and terror. The procla- 
 mation to the Shepherds in the third Gospel, of glory to God in 
 the highest and on earth peace and goodwill to men, forms a 
 natural sequence to the annunciation by the angel to Mary, 
 and the poetical effusions of the visit to Elizabeth ; it har- 
 monizes with the devout utterances of Simeon, and the an- 
 nouncement of the good news by Anna to all who looked for 
 redemption in Jerusalem, with the peaceful return to their 
 own city Nazareth, and their yearly visits to Jerusalem at the 
 feast of the Passover. Contrast with this the doubt and dis- 
 trust of Joseph on learning the pregnancy of his affianced bride 
 — the trouble caused in Jerusalem by the announcement of the 
 Magians that they had seen the Star of the King of the Jews — 
 the enquiries of Herod of the Chief Priests and Scribes — the 
 murder of all the young children at Bethlehem — the previous 
 flight of Joseph and Mary with the child — their hesitating 
 return, and the fear of Archelaus that drove them to Galilee, 
 beyond the boundary of his dominion. In the latter picture 
 there is only one ray to lighten the gloom of the narrative — 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 131 
 
 the homage offered to Jesus by those who, as Magians, re- 
 presented the hostile powers of the unseen world ; just as in 
 the former, there is only one touch of sorrowful anticipation 
 to chequer the brightness of the scene — the announcement to 
 Mary that a sword should pierce through her own heart also.^ 
 The question, therefore, is not merely whether it is possible 
 to find room in the one narrative for the events described in 
 the other, but rather to understand how it could be possible, if 
 all those events occurred that the two evangelists have separately 
 described, that each should have confined himself so exclusively 
 to those of one class, when the others must have been known 
 to him ; and how each should have framed his account in such 
 a manner as to appear to exclude the incidents narrated by the 
 other. 
 
 The approved method of harmonizing the two accounts is, at 
 present, to insert the visit of the Magians between the pre- 
 sentation in the Temple and the return to Galilee, as related in 
 the third Gospel, How far this is possible, without contradict- 
 ing that account, will appear from a simple inspection. The 
 third Gospel says (Luke ii. 23-39), " They took him to Jerusa- 
 lem to present him to the Lord according as it is written in the 
 law of the Lord" — " and when they had performed all things 
 according to the law of the Lord they returned into Galilee to 
 their own city Nazareth." Can it be anything but a contradic- 
 tion to this to say, " when they had performed all things in 
 Jerusalem they returned to Bethlehem — remained there until 
 the arrival of the Magians — ^received their gifts — then fled 
 into Egypt, and afterwards were only prevented from settling 
 in Judoea by fear of Archelaus, and returned to Galilee imder 
 supernatural guidance?" It is, no doubt, true, as the harmon- 
 ists suggest, that the public presentation and the tranquil 
 
 1 " It is instructive, as shewing the purely arbitrary character of modem orthodoi 
 criticism, to see the meaning attempted to be given to this phrase, not, it may be 
 assumed, without a tacit reference to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that 
 'the sharp pangs of sorrow for sin must pierce her own heart also.'" — Alford's N. T» 
 for English Headers, in loc. 
 
132 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 sojourn in Jerusalem, until all legal obligations had been dis- 
 charged, could not have happened after the attention of Herod 
 had been directed to Bethlehem by the arrival of the Magians. 
 It is equally true, however, that while the facts of the case are 
 inconsistent with this latter supposition, the plain language of 
 the third Gospel is inconsistent with the former. And, further, 
 if within five miles of Jerusalem, in the city of prophecy, — the 
 destined birthplace of the Messiah, — such events had taken place 
 as the heavenly vision of the Shepherds, and their public an- 
 nouncement of the fact ; and if in Jerusalem itself — in the 
 Temple — Jesus had been publicly recognized by two persons as 
 remarkable and as well known as Simeon and Anna presumably 
 were, could there have been need of the enquiries of Herod, or 
 that the Chief Priests should rest their censure solely upon the 
 prophecy, without referring to its seeming actual fulfilment ? 
 
 In answer to these questions, it may, no doubt, be suggested 
 that these reports of the shepherds, and the prophetic recogni- 
 tions of Simeon and Anna, were unknown, or were disregarded 
 by the King and the Chief Priests, who would not even have 
 troubled themselves to enquire into the truth of such rumours 
 had they reached them ; and, certainly, viewing their character 
 in the light of history, this would be the case. Few men, pro- 
 bably, would have been less likely than were Herod and the 
 Sadducees of Jerusalem to trouble themselves with the fancies 
 of shepherds, or the broken utterances of two old people, whom 
 they would regard as passing into their second childhood. But 
 then, from this point of view, both Herod and the Chief Priests 
 would have been equally unlikely to pay any attention to the 
 statement of unknown foreigners,— 'that they had seen, in their 
 own land, the Star of the King of the Jews, and had come to 
 worship him. In truth, it is difficult to say which is more 
 incredible — that Magians from the east should have come to 
 Jerusalem to worship the King of the Jews, because they had 
 seen his Star in their own country ; or that, upon their mere 
 statement, Herod and the people of Jerusalem should have been 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 133 
 
 troubled, and the former have been led on to commit a gratui- 
 tous and wholesale murder, when the slightest enquiry would 
 have enabled him to learn that the child whom the Magians 
 had worshipped, and to whom they had presented their offer- 
 ings, had been taken away by his father. 
 
 If, however, we are to assume that Herod and the people of 
 Jerusalem were sufficiently credulous to attach importance to 
 the statement of strangers from a distant land that they had 
 seen a star, which, by their astrological art, they had discovered 
 to be the Star of the King of the Jews, we have no right to 
 suppose that they would be indifferent to rumours of angelic 
 visions and prophetic utterances in the city of David, and in 
 the Temple itself. The credit which, it is suggested, they gave 
 to the one, warrants us in assuming that attention, at least, 
 would be directed to the other ; and the correspondence in 
 purport, and place, and time, between the inference drawn from 
 the Eastern Star that a King of the Jews had been born, and 
 the prophecy of Micah that he was to be born in Bethlehem on 
 the one hand ; and the announcement of the angels, the corres- 
 ponding birth in the stable at Bethlehem, and the recognition 
 of the child so born by Simeon and Anna on the Other, — must 
 have induced all who were impressed by a belief in the former, 
 to see its realization in the latter. It follows, then, that either 
 the account in the first Gospel, or that in the third, must be 
 incorrect, and, as, a priori, there is no reason for preferring one 
 to the other, it is very possible that both may be so. 
 
 "Some of the reasons for distrusting the account in the first 
 Gospel have already been given. The narrative implies accurate 
 knowledge on the part of the Magians, either the result of 
 astrological calculations, or divinely revealed. Few at the 
 present time will be disposed to admit that there was, in this 
 instance, a true result from a false science ; and it is, at least, 
 equally difficult to suppose a divine revelation so unmeaning, 
 and involving such fatal results. In fact, the whole story 
 is so arranged as to make the Magians the instruments of 
 
134 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 arousing the jealousy of Herod, and thus of bringing about 
 what the writer regards as a signal fulfilment of two pro- 
 phecies — the weeping of Hachel over her children that were 
 not, and the calling of the Son of God out of Eg}^t, — pas- 
 sages which, on inspection, have no relation whatever to the 
 events with which they are connected. Had their guiding 
 star led the Magians at once to Bethlehem, or had their 
 calculations been carried to the point of merely determining 
 the place of the birth, or had the dream that warned them 
 not to return to Herod been sent before to warn them where 
 the young child lay, the slain children would have been spared, 
 and the safety of Jesus would not have been threatened, x^nd 
 although, in a natural series of events, it is generally idle to 
 speculate upon what would have happened if this or that had, 
 or had not, been done, yet, when we are told that events have 
 been brought about by the intervention of a superior being, we 
 have a right to enquire how far the preventible results agree 
 with what, in human agents, we should call prudence, human- 
 ity, and justice. Where, then, in this case, was the prudence 
 of exposing Jesus to a danger that could only be escaped by 
 flight into a foreign land ; and where the justice and humanity 
 of causing the death of so many harmless children, and carry- 
 ing terror and anguish into so many peaceful households, for 
 no single apparent end; and when, by a trifling change, these 
 results might have been averted? 
 
 And not only is the supernatural part of the story such as 
 to contradict our conceptions of the character of God, but the 
 conduct attributed to Herod is equally inconsistent and im- 
 probable. It may be conceded that he would have had little 
 scruple in putting to death a score or two of children, if he 
 had believed it necessary to his personal safety, or to the 
 security of his dynasty. Nothing, however, that we know of 
 his character justifies us in supposing that he could have at- 
 tached so much importance to the statement of a few unknown 
 foreigners, as to have slaughtered all the children of a village 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 135 
 
 on the chance of thus removing out of the way a possible com- 
 petitor, with his son or grandson, for the throne of Judaea. 
 And it is, perhaps, even more improbable, considering the 
 promptitude and decision he displayed on all occasions, that, 
 if he had believed in the truth of the announcement and feared 
 the result, he should not have had the Magians watched by 
 trusty emissaries, instructed at once to seize and slay the child. 
 As, therefore, the account in the first Gospel is both inconsis- 
 t-ent and improbable, as it contradicts directly that which is 
 contained in the third, and as it receives no corroboration 
 from any other quarter, there is no alternative but to reject 
 it as xmhistorical, and to attribute it to some vague or mis- 
 understood tradition, which received its present shape under 
 the impression that perils must have menaced the infancy of 
 the Messiah, combined with a belief that all prophecies must 
 have received their fulfilment in incidents connected with his 
 life. 
 
 It remains, then, to examine the account given in the third 
 Gospel. This distinctly asserts what might be doubtful from 
 the first — that Jesus was not only conceived, but was born 
 prior to the marriage of his mother ; ^ that his birth occurred 
 in Bethlehem, and that, subsequently, the family went to re- 
 side in Nazareth. The occasion for the presence of Joseph 
 and Mary at Bethlehem is, however, furnished by an assumed 
 decree of taxing, which required every Jew to repair to the 
 town to which his family belonged, in order, presumably, that 
 he might be enrolled with his tribe. It has been said upon 
 this that there is no record of any such taxation in the days 
 of Herod, and that such a decree would have been quite in- 
 consistent with the position of that Prince ; that Cyrenius was 
 not governor of Syria till several years after the death of 
 Herod ; that the very object of enrolling would have been 
 
 ' Mary is the espoused = betrothed wife of Joseph; not the wife simply. The 
 word is the same as that used in the first Gospel, Matt, i., 16, when his mother, Maiy, 
 was espoused to Joseph, etc. That this was also the understanding of the early Church 
 is shewn by the Gospel of St. Thomas. 
 
136 THE JESUS OP HISTORY. 
 
 defeated if those who were enrolled had been taken from the 
 place of their residence, where their position and property 
 were known, to a place where they had no personal connection, 
 and where there would be no means of testing the accuracy of 
 any statement they might make as to their possessions; and 
 that there would be the further absurdity, that they were en- 
 rolled in one place and would have to pay in another. And, 
 in the face of these difficulties, it is not easy to give credence 
 to the statement of the evangelist. The mere negative evi- 
 dence arising from the want of all contemporary notice of 
 such a decree, would not, probably, of itself be entitled to 
 much weight ;^ but the improbability that any such decree 
 should be made while Herod was king, as it would have been 
 inconsistent with the principles of Roman government, the 
 obvious mistake as to the time at which Cyrenius was go- 
 vernor of Syria, tested even by the data supplied by the 
 author himself as to the age of Jesus when he entered upon 
 his ministry,^ and the erroneous view taken by the writer, of 
 the object and method of the enrolment, furnish conclusive 
 grounds for believing that he is mistaken throughout ; and 
 that, having to reconcile the tradition that Jesus w^as born in 
 Bethlehem with the tradition that Nazareth was the residence 
 of Joseph and Mary, he believed that he had found the means of 
 
 ^ Excepting in the case of Josephus. An enrolment of the people, ■which compelled 
 every Jew to resort to the place to which his family belonged, must have caused suffi- 
 cient excitement to have secured a place in his history. He, however, like the author 
 of the third Gospel and the Acts, knew of only one decree of " taxing " — that which 
 provoked the insurrection of Judas of Galilee. 
 
 2 Jesus would have been much less than thirty years old at the time. A suggestion 
 has recently been made that the name of a governor of Syria wanting on the Eugubine 
 tablet was that of Cyrenius, or Quinnius, and that, consequently, he was twice governor 
 of Sp'ia. If this could be admitted it would remove one source of objection, but 
 would leave the other untouched, and might account for the mistake of the MTiter, 
 who had connected with the first government of Cyrenius an incident that really 
 occurred in the second. That the taxing refen-ed to was really that made after the 
 death of Archelaus, for the purposes of revemie, is conclusively shewn by the speech 
 attributed to Gamaliel (Acts v. 37) by the same author, where the "taxing," or 
 enrolment, is referred to and connected with the revolt of Judas of Galilee. Obviously, 
 the writer knew of only one such decree, and that was when C}Tenius was governor of 
 Syria, several years after the assumed date of the birth of Jesus, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 137 
 
 doing tliis in the well- remembered first taxing by the Romans ; 
 without considering minutely — probably without being aware 
 of — the chronological and other difficulties involved. We need 
 not pursue this enquiry into the supernatural portion of the 
 statement. A story told by one writer only, of events that 
 had happened, at the very least, more than half a century 
 before, that relates two apparitions of the angel Gabriel — the 
 miraculous infliction of deafness and dumbness and their equally 
 miraculous cure ; the appearance of angels in the sky to shep- 
 herds, who hear the very words they sing, — and that professes 
 to record, verbatim, the extempore poetical effusions of a youth- 
 ful maiden and an aged priest, but that has no hold upon con- 
 temporary events, and no connection with the subsequent story, 
 can be entitled to no credit as a history. If believed at all, it 
 must be upon other grounds. 
 
 It may be said that, granting our inability to admit as true 
 the accounts of the evangelists as to the incidents connected 
 with the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, or the causes that led 
 his supposed parents to be present there at the time, yet the 
 very circumstance of those two narratives having been framed 
 to accoimt for the event, shews, at least, the uniformity and 
 persistency of the tradition. And this is, no doubt, true. It 
 is impossible to read the story, as told in the first and third 
 Gospels, without seeing that the one is framed, among other 
 things, to account for the circumstance that, having been re- 
 sident at Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus, Joseph 
 and Mary should afterwards have gone to reside in Nazareth ; 
 and the other for the circumstance that, having been settled 
 at Nazareth, they should, nevertheless, have been dwelling in 
 Bethlehem at the time of that birth. They may, consequently, 
 be accej)ted as evidence, that at the time they were composed 
 it was a fixed belief among Christians that Jesus had been 
 born at Bethlehem. But, then, the discrepancy in the two 
 accounts, and the fact that both are obviously unhistorical, 
 shew that, though this belief existed, it had no certain basis ; 
 
138 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 and suggest that its reasons were dogmatical rather than his- 
 torical ; rather a conviction that such must have been the case, 
 than evidence that it was. And when, upon a perusal of the 
 other Gospels, and even of the later chapters of these two, 
 we find that there is no hint of any knowledge of the alleged 
 fact on the part of Jesus, or of his disciples, or of his enemies ; 
 that maDy occasions arise when it would have been pertinent 
 to assert it, because it would have formed a ready answer to 
 objections, but that no such assertion is made ; and when, too, 
 we remember how strong were the inducements for those who 
 recognized in Jesus the promised Messiah, to assume that in 
 him were fulfilled all prophecies, it is difficult not to conclude 
 that his birth in the predicted city formed no part of the 
 earliest tradition, and that we have here, not the distorted 
 representation of an actual occurrence, but the product of the 
 prevailing sentiment of the judaizing portion of the early 
 Church. 
 
 In this resj)ect it is important to compare the first and third 
 Gospels with the second and fourth, neither of which contains 
 any reference to the birth at Bethlehem, and the latter of 
 which, by implication, exj)ressly excludes it ; ^ though it is 
 probable that the omission has to be accounted for on different 
 grounds. In the second Gospel, so far, at least, as this portion 
 of the history is concerned, we see the earliest form of Christian 
 tradition (as, in fact, we see in the first, if the first two chapters 
 are excluded), when Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, in 
 spite of his Galilaean birth. In the fourth we find the results 
 of a later stage of thought, when the Messiahship of Jesus 
 was represented as the result of his inherent dignity, and 
 needed no corroboration from his fulfilling the conditions of 
 prophecy as regarded the King of the Jews. It may almost 
 be regarded as certain that the writer of the fourth Gospel 
 was acquainted with the narrative of the birth at Bethlehem, 
 in both of its forms. His omission to embody either in his 
 
 1 John i., 45, 46. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 139 
 
 work arose, probably, in part, from the different aspect under 
 which lie purposed to himself to represent Jesus, and, in part, 
 from his anti-judaical tendencies. The former rendered it 
 needless that Jesus should fulfil this assumed condition of 
 Messiahship, and the latter forbade him to reproduce that 
 portion of the existing tradition which exhibited Jesus in the 
 character of the purely Jewish deliverer, predicted by Micah. 
 With the writer of the second Gospel, however, the case is 
 different. No reason can be assigned for his entire omission 
 of the narrative of the first, had he been acquainted with it, 
 though, in that case, it would, probably, have been altered in 
 many particulars. For the miraculous conception of Jesus, 
 and the marvels attending his birth, belonged to a class of 
 ideas with which the Gentiles were familiar, and were well 
 adapted to elevate their idea of the nature of the person of 
 whom they were told; and the author, who dwells upon the 
 marvels wrought by Jesus, in preference to his teaching, 
 would, we may be sure, have seized this opportunity of add- 
 ing to his store of wonders if he had known of it. If, then, 
 we still retain the opinion that the second Gospel is founded 
 upon the first, it can only be upon the assumj)tion that these 
 chapters were interpolated in the first Gospel after the second 
 was written — an assumption supported by the obvious fact 
 that there is no allusion, of any kind, to their contents in any 
 of the subsequent chapters. It is, indeed, probable that they 
 were interpolated after the composition of the third Gospel. 
 One of the features of that Gospel is the skill which the 
 writer displays in interweaving his original matter with that 
 which he derives from the two earlier narratives ; and though, 
 in many instances, he modifies, and in some, entirely omits 
 incidents related in the first Gospel, yet he never absolutely 
 excludes them, excepting in the present instance. And no 
 reason has ever been assigned, so far as we are aware, for his 
 peremptory exclusion of the visit of the Magians and the 
 flight into Egypt, upon the supposition that he was acquainted 
 
140 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 with the story, as a part of the narrative from which his own 
 was, in so great a degree, derived. If he had known it as an 
 unauthenticated statement, whether still floating in tradition, 
 or already embodied in some writing to which he attached no 
 authority, the texture of his own history, which, between the 
 birth of Jesus and the return of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth, 
 allows of no insertion of such events, is intelligible ; but scarcely 
 so if he had met with it in the first Gospel, whose authority he 
 so unmistakably recognizes. This, however, is a matter which 
 it is not necessary or important to decide. It is enough that 
 we are entitled to conclude that the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, 
 and the wonderful events with which it was associated, formed 
 no part of the original, and, so to speak, common tradition of 
 the Church. 
 
 But, then, it is equally certain that this original tradition re- 
 presented Jesus as the son of Joseph, and Mary as the mother 
 of several children, all, as well as Jesus, begotten and born in 
 wedlock. With the habits of the Jews at that time, it was 
 impossible that the fact of the eldest son having been born 
 prior to the marriage of his mother, could have been unknown. 
 And we may be sure that, if known, it would have been deroga- 
 tory to him in the estimation of those who had never heard 
 of the miraculous conception, or who did not believe it, and 
 a source of glory in the minds of those who had so heard and 
 believed. And it is impossible but that a truthful history of his 
 life should have contained some manifestation of these feelings 
 on the part of those who were brought into contact with him — 
 the scorn of the one class, the adoration of the other. By the 
 Mosaic law, a person born t3ut of wedlock was excluded from 
 the congregation ; and it cannot be believed that, if this blot 
 had attached to the birth of Jesus, he could, among those who 
 knew the circumstances of his family, and who did not believe 
 in him as the Messiah, have officiated as reader in the Sj^nagogue, 
 or have been permitted to assume the office of expounder of the 
 law. Nor could his mother have retained her position as a 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 141 
 
 Jewish matron, or been referred to in the same terms that 
 would be employed of any woman to whose character no stain 
 attached, if apparently proved to have been unchaste by the 
 birth of a child before marriage. 
 
 We have been so accustomed to the idea of the miraculous 
 conception, and the associations with which it is connected in 
 our minds are so exclusively those of purity and elevation, that 
 it requires a strong effort of the imagination to place ourselves 
 in the position of a pious Jew of the time of Jesus, and to realize 
 the feelings of horror and indignation with which he would 
 receive such a suggestion as that Jehovah should have been 
 directly and literally the father of a human child. Not that his 
 feeling is to be to us the measure of truth or of purity, but that 
 our realization of it enables us to understand in what light Mary 
 would have been regarded if, in fact, she had been known to 
 have borne a child before marriage, and if an attempt had been 
 made to account for the circumstance hj a suggestion that the 
 child was conceived of the Spirit of God. She would have been 
 regarded by the majority as not merely unchaste, but as a blas- 
 phemer. And if a few had believed her story, — as there is 
 nothing that some persons cannot be found to believe, — they 
 would have been altogether unable to stem the torrent of in- 
 dignation directed against her. But of any such feeling on the 
 one side or the other there is not even a trace. Everything 
 that we read suggests an ordinary Jewish household — chaste, 
 pious, orderly, and peaceful— supported by the labour of the 
 father until the children grew up to contribute their share to its 
 maintenance ; and then, if we may credit an indication in the 
 second Gospel, Jesus must have himself wrought at his father's 
 trade. Certainly nothing in the Synoptical Gospels would lead 
 to the inference that there was anything in the circumstances 
 of his birth, or of his youth or early manhood, to prepare his 
 brethren or fellow-townsmen for his subsequent assumption of 
 the character in which he appeared.^ 
 
 1 The question of the miraculous conception has been considered only under one 
 
142 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 With regard to the alleged descent of Jesus from David the 
 case is very similar. This was at an earlier period a portion 
 of the Christian tradition, as is shewn by the statement of 
 Paul referred to above, and by the fact that the two genea- 
 logies preserved to us both trace his descent through Joseph, 
 which became unmeaning, and in fact a puzzle, when the idea of 
 the miraculous conception was introduced. Whether either of 
 these genealogies is accurate we are unable to ascertain, for 
 there are no possible means of verification open to us. There is, 
 however, a strong presumption that neither is so, from the cir- 
 cumstance that two so conflicting should have been preserved. 
 If existing records in the family of Joseph had furnished the ma- 
 terials from which a genealogy of Jesus was drawn up, we may be 
 quite certain that whatever obscurity might attach to the earlier 
 portions, they would not have described Joseph as possessing two 
 fathers, without having, at the same time, furnished the ex- 
 aspect, viz., whether it was known to the contemporaries of Jesus, or formed part of 
 the belief of the first disciples. Regarded as a question of fact, it is, of course, utterly 
 incredible, aud as entirely incapable of being proved by evidence as the corresponding 
 dogma of the immaculate conception. There is one intelligible ground upon which 
 it may be rested — the Divine inspiration of the two Evangelists who relate it, or, as 
 the case may be, of the Church that receives their testimony. But this, though an 
 intelligible, is scarcely a secure basis for the belief ; for, whatever the possession of 
 Divine inspiration may imply, it would certainly seem that it does not imply an abso- 
 lute guarantee against error in matter of fact. Upon any other basis no reasonable 
 man could believe it. 
 
 Many semi-rationalistic commentators, among whom we must here include Dean 
 Alford, suggest that Luke, while collecting materials for his Gospel, might have re- 
 ceived the account from Mary ; forgetting, apparently, that the story would not be a 
 whit more credible on that account. And, yet, any one who will imagine himself to be 
 told such a tale by a lady of upwards of seventy, as having occurred to herself more 
 than half a century before, will see that such is the case. But, in truth, there is nothing 
 to lead to such a supposition, and much to contradict it. The only notice of Mary 
 after the resurrection shows that there was no tradition of her having been perma- 
 nently connected with the Church. And if Luke had obtained these particulars from 
 her, how is it that this is all he learned, and that during the whole public life of Jesus 
 there is no reference to her in his Gospel, excepting the disparaging assertion that 
 those who do the will of God are his mother and his brothers. Neither during the 
 journey to Jerusalem, nor at the cross, nor at the sepulchre, nor at the ascension, is 
 her name once mentioned. And besides this, the suggestion that the story rests upon 
 the evidence of Mary destroys at once (with Protestants) its assumed supernatural 
 guarantee. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 143 
 
 planatlon of so unusual an occurrence. It is impossible that 
 both can be accurate, for they palpably contradict each other. 
 All the attempts that have been made to reconcile them proceed 
 upon the assumption of some error, or omission, in one account 
 or the other, and the presumption is that they are both equally 
 erroneous and imfounded. They were, probably, invented to 
 supply to believing Jews, and to those who entered the Church 
 by the way of Judaism, — to all, in fact, who considered that 
 the descent from David was an essential pre-requisite to the 
 Messiahship claimed for Jesus, — a proof that this condition was 
 fulfilled. 
 
 In this particular also the first chapters of the first and 
 third Gospels are inconsistent with the whole of the subse- 
 quent history, for there is no reference in the latter, on the 
 part either of Jesus or of his disciples, to the fact of his 
 Davidical descent ; and there is much to suggest the opposite 
 conclusion. If it had been known that he was, in fact, de- 
 scended from David, — and, with the Jewish habits of that day, 
 such a fact could scarcely have been unknown, — this would 
 surely have lessened, in some degree, the astonishment of 
 those who, on witnessing his assumption of the prophetical 
 character, referred, almost contemptuously, to his father, the 
 carpenter, and to his brethren whom they knew. The fact 
 that these were "of the house and lineage of David "^ must 
 have given some lustre to them, and have justified the belief 
 that from such a source an inspired teacher might arise. 
 And, as has been often pointed out, the dialogue with the 
 Pharisees, in which Jesus argues that the Messiah could not 
 be the Son of David, because David addresses him as Lord, 
 evinces in the most conclusive manner the opinion of the 
 narrator, that Jesus himself had not this mark of Messiahship. 
 
 1 Some commentators suggest that, in the confusion of the times, the proof of this 
 was lost or obscured, or that the family of Joseph, in its actual condition, refrained 
 from making the claim. But they forget that, according to the third evangelist, it 
 was so notorious as to occasion his being summoned from Nazareth to Eethlehem to 
 be taxed in the city of David. 
 
144 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 We are compelled, consequently, to presume that Jesus was 
 of obscure and unknown ancestry, and that, like so many of 
 the heroes of our race, he rendered illustrious a name that had 
 no previous title to renown. It is probable that the belief in 
 the descent from David, like that of the birth at Bethlehem, 
 was the result of the conviction of the disciples, that, as the 
 Messiah, he must have fulfilled all the conditions of prophecy. 
 In this case, also, there appears reason to surmise that the 
 existing genealogy did not form part of the first Gospel when 
 the third was composed, for it is scarcely conceivable that the 
 writer of the latter would, if it had, have introduced into his 
 work so palpable a contradiction of that of his predecessor.^ 
 
 Of all that is related of Jesus before his baptism there re- 
 mains, consequently, only the incident of the interview with 
 the doctors in the Temple, reported in the third Gospel alone. 
 It is not needful to examine into the authority for this. 
 Possibly it really occurred ; but when an event of this nature, 
 belonging to a period of which no other evangelist speaks, 
 and with regard to which we know, from other sources, many 
 legends were current, is preserved by one writer only, it is 
 much more probable that it is due to the embellishing influence 
 of tradition than that it represents any actual scene. 
 
 The result at which we have arrived, upon purely critical 
 grounds, and apart from any objection founded upon the alleged 
 supernatural character of the events, is, that the first two 
 chapters of the first Gospel are entirely unhistorical, and that 
 the same is the case with the first two chapters of the third, 
 with the possible exception of the story last referred to. And 
 yet there can be no doubt that the incidents related in these — 
 " the virgin mother and the heavenly child ; " the adoration 
 of the Magi ; the angelic appearance to the shepherds ; the 
 
 1 It is observable tbat Justin, writing about the middle of the second century, 
 appears to know nothing of the descent of Joseph from David, but traces that of 
 Jesus through Mary (Reuss, Hist, du Canon, p. 57). This suggests a doubt whether 
 his authorities contained these genealogies. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 145 
 
 birth in the stable and the cradling in the manger, — the 
 pictures of original purity and of happy maternity; of intrinsic 
 dignity shining through its mean environment, and henceforth 
 ennobling poverty as the chosen condition of the Son of God 
 and the Eedeemer of man, — have been potent instruments for 
 facilitating the spread of Christianity, and are even now main 
 sources of its power in the greater portion of Christendom. In 
 fact, at the present day, throughout the Greek and Roman 
 churches, Christianity rests more upon faith in the Virgin than 
 upon faith in Jesus ; and the worship of Jesus is rather in the 
 form of the infant — the bambino — than in that of the teacher 
 and prophet set forth in the Synoptical Gospels ; or the Son 
 of God, born of a woman, born under the law, by whom God 
 made the worlds, — crucified for our redemption and raised for 
 our justification, preached by Paul; or the pre-existing Logos, 
 by whom all things were made, of the fourth Gospel. And 
 the emotional side of Christianity has always a tendency to 
 ally itself with these images ; or if prevented, as it is to a 
 great extent in Protestantism, then to bring into prominence 
 the human aspect of Jesus. In that case it finds an object for 
 its devotion in the man that went about doing good ; who took 
 little children in his arms and blessed them; who wept over 
 the anticipated woes of his countrymen, and who loved his own 
 to the end with a human love ; — rather than in the consubstantial 
 son of the creeds. 
 
 This is, perhaps, inevitable. Our wider knowledge of our own 
 world and of the universe have so changed our conceptions of God, 
 that to one who realises the change, the old feelings of devotion 
 that a Jew could entertain towards Jehovah are now scarcely 
 possible. The infinite being, filling a literally infinite universe, 
 governing, not merely all races of men that dwell upon the face 
 of the earth, but all races of sentient and intelligent beings in 
 all worlds and systems of worlds, present and operating in all 
 places and all times, carrying on infinite processes by laws which 
 never vary, towards results that we can neither foresee nor even 
 
 10 
 
146 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 imagine, is too vast and impersonal a conception to be appre- 
 hended by individual faith.'^ It requires to be humanized and 
 limited. This is effected for Protestants in the person of the 
 Man Jesus, and for Romanists in the Virgin and Child. And 
 the process is facilitated to the former by the pictures which 
 these Gospels of the infancy furnish of the human relations 
 sustained by Jesus. 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten, in justice to the Roman Church, 
 that, just as the Nicene Creed, so far as the Son is concerned, is 
 the logical development of the introduction to the fourth Gospel, 
 and the Athanasian Creed the complement of the Nicene, — so 
 the doctrine of the Theotokos — the Mother of God — is the logical 
 development of the story of the miraculous conception, and the 
 recent dogma of the immaculate conception the complement of 
 that doctrine from the point of view of those creeds. For, surely, 
 if the Prince of Wisdom was deemed too sacred to be born from 
 any womb but that of a Virgin,^ the coequal and consubstan- 
 tial Son, one with the Father in person and dignity, should 
 require for the medium of his birth into our world a being free 
 from all stain of passion and infirmity — as pure as the human 
 nature which he himself assumed. 
 
 And this indicates the weak point of these narratives. Side 
 by side with the good they have done, — and few will deny that 
 they have done much ; — they have also tended on the one hand 
 to lower the conception of God, and to substitute a human for a 
 divine object of worship, and on the other to elevate the ideal of 
 virginity with all its ascetic and prurient associations above that 
 of maternity. Those who are brought to see God in Man can 
 scarcely refrain from making the human aspect of this God the 
 object of worship. And those who look upon the Virgin as the 
 Mother of God, necessarily feel, whatever they may suppose 
 
 1 This is instinctively shewn by a work published some seven or eight years ago, 
 " An Essay on the Plurality of Worlds," the object of which really was to bring God 
 more nearly within the reach of man, by shewing that he had nothing but one world 
 to care for. 
 
 2 Jerome adv. Jovin. i. 26, cited in Baden Powell's " Order of Kature." 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 147 
 
 themselves to believe, that God is derived and limited, having a 
 beginning in time, and continuing to sustain a subordinate and 
 dependant relation to his mother. So that a devout Romanist 
 can write of " insults offered to the majesty of God and to his 
 mother," without a word to guard against the seeming inference 
 from his language, as though, in fact, it were the case of an 
 ordinary parent and child. It needs no testimony to tell us, 
 what, nevertheless, all testimony confirms, that when such is the 
 language of instructed devotees, the whole popular sentiment of 
 devotion wiU be attracted towards the Virgin as the real source 
 of blessing, and even of goodness, and that all true and worthy 
 ideas of God will be effaced from the actual belief of the people. 
 Little avails it that the original formularies of the Church 
 remain unchanged, that in creeds and symbols the supremacy of 
 the Father and his eternal existence may be asserted, and the 
 origin of the Virgin in time and place distinctly set forth. 
 These, indeed, may serve for arguments with heretics and infi- 
 dels, or may mask from men of the higher order of intellect the 
 true character of the system they sanction. With the people, 
 however, they have no influence. The very phrase, "The 
 Mother of God," of itself practically outweighs all their teach- 
 ing, if ever they are taught, and gives to Mary in the new Roman 
 belief the same supremacy that belonged to Cybele, " The mother 
 of the gods," in the old. 
 
 In justice to the early disciples it must not be forgotten 
 that in this, as in so many other cases, the Church has 
 contradicted the plain teaching of Jesus as preserved in their 
 traditions. Even in the fourth Gospel he is described as repu- 
 diating in express terms aU equality with the Father ; while in 
 the Synoptical Gospels there is nothing to suggest the possession 
 of a divine nature, and he even repels the ascription of absolute 
 goodness. And with regard to Mary, he emphatically disclaims 
 aU subordination to her, and, instead of investing her with any 
 exceptional dignity, he elevates every one of his true disciples 
 to at least an equality of relationship to himself. He even, 
 
148 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 by implication, condemns the very employment of that term 
 "blessed," which Anglicans as well as Romanists, and some, 
 too, of the dissidents of England and America, always associate 
 with her name. When, in his presence, a woman, who realized 
 the pride and joy she would feel in being the mother of such a 
 son, pronounced his mother blessed, Jesus, on the contrary, pro- 
 nounces those rather to be entitled to such an epithet who hear 
 the "Word of God and do it. And when informed of the pre- 
 sence of his mother, under circumstances that might seem to 
 imply some claim to authority on her part, he even disavows the 
 natural ties that connect him with her, in order to give greater 
 prominence to the spiritual ties that connect him with those 
 who do the will of his Father. What " insults" to the " Mother 
 of God" such language would imply if used by modern Pro- 
 testant divines ! 
 
 And, on the other hand, the assumed birth of Jesus from a 
 virgin may easily be construed to imply that there is something 
 impure and degrading in the marriage relation, and thus to 
 give a colour to the Romish doctrine upon that subject. The 
 ideal of that Church is not Christian, but Gnostic. It is not 
 the "Angel in the house," but the saint in the cloister — not 
 the wife and mother who is a crown of glory to her husband, 
 and whose children rise up and call her blessed, but the 
 "Regular" who has severed or renounced all earthly ties, in 
 order that she may secure a higher place in heaven. Their 
 type of womanly excellence is not the matron whose life is 
 occupied in the discharge of duties, often perhaps individually 
 trifling, but important, essential even in the aggregate, and 
 endeared and dignified by love — the adviser, confidant, and 
 friend of her children, training them in habits of devotion and 
 piety, weeping over their wanderings, but never losing her faith 
 in their ultimate amendment, and ready at all times to sufier in 
 order that those whom she loves may be saved. It is rather 
 the ascetic man, "pale," absorbed, emaciated — whose life is 
 one long suicide — whose knees are callous with repeated genu- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 149 
 
 flexions, and whose body is attenuated by fasting, and possibly 
 torn by the scourge — who dares not perform tbe ablutions 
 needful for cleanliness and health lest proud and impure 
 thoughts should be suggested by the process — whose time is so 
 occupied by self-inspection as to leave no leisure for acts of 
 benevolence, and whose heart is filled with love of the Virgin or 
 of Jesus to the exclusion of all human sympathies. 
 
 That which the Eomish Church honours, and desires espe- 
 cially to promote is not chastity, but " holy virginity." It is 
 not the idealization of maiden purity, of youthful continence, of 
 an habitual mastery over the passions, which shall make them 
 the servants instead of the tyrants of the soul. It is the canoni- 
 zation, almost, we might say, the deification,^ of a mere physical 
 virtue which shuts out the votary from the most tender and 
 unselfish circle of human feelings, which, save in exceptional 
 times, or in peculiar constitutions, almost necessitates exclusion 
 from society as a condition of its preservation, and brings with 
 it material, mental, and moral results, upon which it would be 
 painful to dwell. 
 
 Here, also, there has been a departure from the principles 
 taught by Jesus. He, indeed, denounces unchastity, even of the 
 heart. But he proclaims the divine origin of marriage. And 
 there is not a word attributed to him to shew that he regarded 
 virginity as holy, or even with favour. Romanists, however, 
 may plead apostolical authority in support of some of their 
 views, since Paul undoubtedly represents the married state, not 
 perhaps as impure, but as keeping the wedded brother and sister 
 upon a lower level than that which it was both posssible and de- 
 sirable they should reach. And it may be a question whether 
 his views with regard to the essentially sinful nature of the 
 flesh did not even induce him to regard marriage as something 
 
 1 There is not so much diflFerence between these. No old Roman ever prayed to 
 the "Divus Julius" with half the faith and fervour with which a modern Eoman 
 supplicates " the holy Anthony," though the former was called a god, and the latter 
 only a saint. 
 
150 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 evil in itself, and only permitted in order to prevent the still 
 greater evils resulting from the disorderly gratification of the 
 passions. To pursue these inquiries would lead us too far from 
 our immediate purpose.^ 
 
 1 According to the traditions of the Church preserved by Eusebius, Peter, the first 
 Bishop of Rome, was not only married, but was accompanied to his See by his wife, 
 who suffered martyrdom a short time before himself. It is rather unjust, though 
 perhaps quite natui'al, that she should not have been canonized. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE PRECURSOE. 
 
 In each of the G-ospels Jesus is represented, before lie entered 
 upon his public ministry, as having been brought into contact 
 with John the Baptist, — a person whose position, character, 
 and relation to Jesus, present an enigma which it is scarcely 
 possible to solve. Our only sources of information respecting 
 him are the Gospels and Josephus, and a brief reference to his 
 disciples in the Acts of the Apostles ; and these do not enable 
 us to answer the questions they suggest. 
 
 The picture drawn of John, by the first two evangelists, is 
 that of an ascetic, in raiment, in food, and in residence. He 
 dwells in the desert, eats locusts and wild honey, and is clothed 
 with a garment of camel's hair, fastened about his loins with a 
 leathern girdle. His dress and abode apf)ear to be modelled 
 upon those of Elijah, who also dwelt in the desert, and was, 
 apparently, clothed in a single mantle of hair, and girded with 
 a leathern belt ; and though the food is not, as in his case, 
 furnished miraculously, yet it is the natural product of the 
 region, needing neither culture nor preparation. We are un- 
 able to say to what extent the picture thus drawn may have 
 been aflPected by dogmatic considerations ; for the desire to ex- 
 hibit in John a copy of the predicted forerunner, may have led 
 the writers to portray him in this guise. It is, however, quite 
 possible that John, who appears to have attributed to himself 
 the functions of Elijah, in his character of the messenger who 
 was to precede the coming of the day of the Lord, ma}^ have 
 felt that it was incumbent upon him to copy his exemplar as 
 
152 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 nearly as circumstances would allow. We see, by the instances 
 of the public entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, that such a scenic 
 embodiment of the external incidents of a character would 
 have been in accordance with the sentiments of the people, and 
 John may have deemed it to be required by his position, or 
 may have been willing to avail himself of the additional in- 
 fluence it might confer upon him. 
 
 That John was really an ascetic may be inferred from the 
 speech of Jesus, in which he contrasts his own mode of life 
 with that of his predecessor. And it appears, from the en- 
 quiry put into the mouth of his disciples as to the reason for 
 the omission of the followers of Jesus to fast, that, if he did not 
 impose fasting as a duty, he did not interfere with the habitual 
 fastings which orthodox Jews were accustomed to practice. 
 There is nothing of asceticism in his doctrines, according to 
 any of our authorities. In the second and third Gospels he is 
 represented as preaching the baptism of repentance for the re- 
 mission of sins, and in the third he is described, in addition, as 
 laying down practical rules for the guidance of those that seek 
 his advice. According to Josephus, he commanded the people to 
 practice justice to each other, and piety to God. Only in the 
 first Gospel, indeed, have we a description of what appears to 
 have been the real character of his preaching — repentance, in 
 view of the immediate coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 We can see from the two other Gospels, that this coming 
 of the Kingdom must, at least, have been implied in his dis- 
 courses, since the one whose shoes he was not worthy to 
 unloose, and who was to come after him, could only be the 
 Messiah. His disclaimer shews that Messianic expectations 
 were associated with his preaching, and that these had led 
 some among the multitude, or his disciples, to conjecture that 
 he might himself be the Christ ; and, though he repudiates 
 that character, he does not discourage the hope of the im- 
 mediate coming of the kingdom, but connects it with one 
 whose claims are, as yet, undisclosed. And this conclusion 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 153 
 
 is confirmed by the speecli attributed to Paul, in the Acts, 
 that John baptized, telling his disciples that they must be- 
 lieve in the Christ that was to come after him ; whom Paul 
 identified with Jesus.^ 
 
 It was in view of this kingdom, and as a means, apparently, 
 of admission to its privileges, that John preached repentance, 
 and that he prescribed the rite of baptism for the remission of 
 sins. "We may, consequently, gather that he regarded it, pri- 
 marily, rather under its moral than its material aspect. Possi- 
 bly he believed that its coming might be accelerated by the 
 amendment of the people, and postponed, perhaps indefinitely, 
 by their continuance in sin. The prolonged delay of the ap- 
 pearance of the Messiah must have suggested a doubt in the 
 mind of many a pious Jew, whether the true obstacle might 
 not be in the condition of the nation itself. The prophets, 
 upon whose predictions the belief rested, had insisted upon 
 the necessity of mercy and truth ; of justice to man and holi- 
 ness to God. And there were many passages in their writings 
 declaring that the promises of Jehovah were conditional, and 
 would not be accomplished unless all the conditions were ful- 
 filled. ^ And such, probably, was the doctrine preached by 
 John. We cannot, indeed, determine whether the repentance 
 he required was regarded as a national or an individual qualifi- 
 cation ; whether it was intended to fit the disciple to enter into 
 the kingdom, or to prepare the way for its establishment. 
 Probably the two ideas were not clearly distinguished. Both 
 would be involved in his preaching, and one or the other dwelt 
 upon according to the point of view from which the doctrine 
 was, for the time, regarded. 
 
 There can be little doubt, however, that in practice the idea 
 of individual qualification would ultimately become predominant. 
 The rite of baptism that John prescribed, which in his system 
 
 ^ Acts xix., 4. This appears to be the true meaning of the language used by Paul. 
 
 2 The book of Daniel must be excepted from this. It is apocal}'ptical rather than 
 prophetical, and it fixes a definite time for the fulfilment of its predictions, in-espective 
 of any moral preparation on the part of the people. 
 
154 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 was apparently both a symbol and an instrument of the purifi- 
 cation that must precede the remission of sins, was a personal 
 act, and its consequences must have been personal also. Before 
 the rite was administered, the neophyte was required to confess 
 his sins, to promise repentance and amendment, and to profess 
 a belief in the coming of the Messiah, into whose name he would 
 seem to have been baptized.^ When this was done, his sins were 
 held to have been washed away in the cleansing waters, and 
 with them all that obstructed his entrance into the kingdom of 
 heaven, of which from that moment he became a citizen. And 
 this would seem to imply that no one who was not thus baptized 
 would be regarded as entitled to enter. 
 
 The rite of baptism had not merely a meaning and opera- 
 tion in view of the coming kingdom ; it was also a ceremony 
 of initiation. We can see from the notices in the Gospels that 
 the disciples of John were a recognized body. And it would 
 appear that they were numerous and influential throughout 
 Galilee and Judaea, and even in Jerusalem itself. We learn, too, 
 from the Acts of the Apostles, that they had spread into Asia 
 Minor, and, probably, even into Egypt.^ We may infer, there- 
 fore, that John was engaged in forming a society, which was 
 probably secret, in so far that its members would only be fully 
 known to each other, and that none but members would be 
 allowed to be present at its meetings. Its object can only be 
 conjectured. Possibly they were confined to the moral reforma- 
 tion of the members, and to the increase of the society. Even 
 in that case, however, they would necessarily tend to become 
 allied with political feelings and movements, and it is not 
 improbable that they had from the first a well understood poli- 
 tical reference. In fact, in the actual state of the Jewish people, 
 it could scarcely have been otherwise. We cannot even conjec- 
 ture the signs by which the disciples were enabled to recognize 
 
 1 The formula was probably, "into the name of him that should come," eis to 
 ovofia Tov epxa/xtvov. 
 
 2 Acts xix. 1-7 ; xviii. 24. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 155 
 
 each other, or the rites that they practised in common, though 
 there must have been both. "Whatever was its nature, however, 
 any Jew might become a member. And we may be quite 
 certain that none but Jews were admitted, and that after admis- 
 sion they were required to obey every precept of the law.^ 
 
 From the continuance of this society, and its wide diffusion, 
 it is probable that it had been fully organized by its founder, 
 and that, even from the beginning, provision had been made for 
 the admission of fresh members by their being baptized either at 
 meetings of the body, or by individuals authorized for the pur- 
 pose. And whoever became a member considered himself as en- 
 titled on that account to admission into the kingdom, without 
 recognizLiig its actual founder. The disciples at Ephesus, with 
 whom Paul spoke, and who were baptized into the baptism 
 of John, regarded themselves as brethren ; and their claim had 
 been recognized by others. ApoUos, also, though instructed 
 in the way of the Lord, knew only the baptism of John. 
 It is true we are told that this knowledge and baptism were 
 not considered sufficient. The disciples at Ephesus were, it 
 is said, required to be baptized specifically into the name of 
 the Lord Jesus ; and Apollos, though it does not appear that he 
 was re-baptized,2 had the way of Grod more fully expounded to 
 him. Merely narrow boundaries, we may believe, separated the 
 followers of Jesus from those of John ; and the latter not only 
 expected the Messiah, but believed that they were qualified both 
 to preach and to share his kingdom. 
 
 Two of the Evangelists^ describe John as having, in immea- 
 sured terms, denounced those who came to his baptism ; either 
 the whole multitude, according to the third Evangelist, or the 
 
 1 THs results necessarily from tlie popularity of Jotin among the Jews, and tlie in- 
 fluence of his disciples Lq Jerusalem. Matt. xxi. 16, and the corresponding passages in 
 Mark and Luke. 
 
 2 This, perhaps, may entitle us to doubt -whether Paul, who rather disparages the 
 importance of baptism, 1 Cor. i. 17, really required that the disciples at Ephesus should 
 be re-baptized. 
 
 3 Matt. iii. 7, et seq. ; Luke iii. 7, et seq. 
 
156 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Pharisees and Sadducees, according to the first : designating them 
 as a generation of vipers, and indicating clearly their final rejec- 
 tion from the kingdom that he preached. It is plain from the 
 close correspondence, it may almost be said the absolute identity, 
 of the two Gospels, in what they have in common on this subject, 
 that one has been copied from the other ; either the passage in 
 the third from that of the first with additions, or that in the first 
 from that in the third with omissions, — in which case the latter 
 must be an interpolation. And a comparison of the two passages 
 suggests that this is, probably, true. The conclusion of the 
 speech of the Baptist, common to both Gospels, in which he 
 contrasts his own baptism with that of him who was to come, 
 follows naturally, in the third Evangelist, the statement of the 
 uncertainty in the minds of his hearers whether he might not 
 himself be the Christ ; and it is explained by his desire to dis- 
 claim all pretensions to that dignity, and to place himself in his 
 avowed position of the forerunner ; while in the first it has no re- 
 lation to anything that has gone before. It is therefore more 
 probable that the fuller version in the third Gospel was the 
 original, and that it was partially transferred by some copyist 
 into the first. ^ 
 
 Apart, too, from any grounds of objection to the statement 
 in the first Gospel, derived from a comparison with that in the 
 third, there is nothing in the history to lead to the supposition 
 that either the Pharisees or the Sadducees would have enrolled 
 themselves among the disciples of John, or have presented them- 
 selves as candidates for his baptism. The latter, as we have 
 seen, were the avowed opponents of the Messianic doctrine, on 
 the double ground of its keeping alive an insurrectionary spirit 
 in the people, and of its implying a belief in the resurrection 
 of the dead. And the rite of baptism, upon which John in- 
 sisted, was not required by the law, and would, consequently, 
 have appeared to them a heterodox innovation. The former 
 were equally the opponents of the practices and doctrines of 
 
 J D'Eichthal les Evangiles, Vol. ii. p. 205. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 157 
 
 the Essenes, with whom it has been surmised that John was at 
 one time connected. Nor would they have admitted that they 
 needed confession and baptism for the remission of their sins. 
 And, in addition to this, the passage in the third Gospel (Luke 
 vii., 30) — " The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of 
 God against themselves, not being baptized of him " (John) — 
 contains a formal contradiction of the statement in the first 
 Gospel, so far as the Pharisees are concerned. 
 
 There is, however, great difficulty in accepting the statement 
 in the third Gospel as authentic. We see, in all the Synoptical 
 Gospels, how strong was the feeling of the people in favour of 
 John within a few months of his death, and we may gather 
 from Josephus that his memory continued to be cherished for 
 more than two generations afterwards. It is, at least, doubtful 
 whether such feelings could have become associated with the 
 man who, preaching the kingdom to Jews, had mocked at their 
 pretensions, and had menaced them with absolute and final ex- 
 clusion. Nor was there anything in his or their circumstances 
 to explain such denunciations. They were attracted by his 
 teaching, and evinced their belief in its truth by complying 
 with its conditions. Their conduct was, consequently, a proof 
 that they were entitled to share in the kingdom. And, from 
 all that we know of John, no one would have been more ready 
 than he to recognize the sufficiency of that proof, or the valid- 
 ity of their original claim, as children of Abraham.^ 
 
 We have no information whatever of the previous history of 
 John. Even if we were not compelled to reject, as mythical, 
 the account of his birth in the third Gospel, that would afibrd 
 no materials from which we could understand his training or 
 development, or the circumstances that led him to assume the 
 office of a preacher of the kingdom. It has been suggested 
 that he was, originally, an Essenian. If so, he must have 
 
 1 The speech, however, corresponds with the stand-point of the author of the third 
 Gospel ; for, when he wrote, the majority of the Jews had been, practically, excluded 
 from the Kingdom preached in the name of Jesus, and their place was supplied by 
 Gentiles, whom God had raised up to be children to Abraham. 
 
158 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 separated himself from that sect. A belief in the Messiah did 
 not, so far as we can ascertain, form any part of their creed; 
 and John, when first introduced, is represented as having a dis- 
 tinct position, and a discipleship dependent upon himself alone. 
 The assumed connection with the Essenes may, after all, be 
 purely imaginary. It is founded only upon the residence in 
 the desert, in which they also resided, upon his ascetic mode 
 of life, and upon the circumstance that he enforced the rite of 
 baptism. But his asceticism may have been the result of a 
 conscious imitation of Elijah, while baptism was a recognized 
 Jewish ceremony of initiation, to which Gentile converts were 
 required to submit, in addition to circumcision. It is very 
 possible that his preaching was one of the indirect results of 
 the revolt of Judas of Galilee, which, according to Josephus 
 (Antiq. xviii. L, 1), though suppressed, left a spirit of resistance 
 to foreign rule that was never altogether quiescent, and oc- 
 casioned the final outbreak. This spirit was, necessarily, con- 
 nected with Messianic aspirations and hopes, in which, from the 
 nature of his teaching, John must have shared. In that case 
 we may presume that experience of the weakness of the Jews 
 had convinced him that success could only be obtained through 
 help of Jehovah, and that- he believed a moral reformation of 
 the people was the condition of such help, or the condition 
 of entrance into the Kingdom which Jehovah was about to 
 establish. 
 
 The success of his preaching, drawing crowds together, was 
 the cause, according to Josephus, of his imprisonment and 
 death. This account is more probable in itself, and more con- 
 sistent with the character of Herod, than that given in the 
 first two Gospels, in which the imprisonment of John is 
 attributed to a mere personal grievance, and his death to the 
 malice of Herodias, acting through the fascinations of her 
 daughter upon the weakness of Ilerod. It is, no doubt, possi- 
 ble that the two motives may have co-existed ; or even that 
 revenge for John's censure of his unlawful marriage may 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 159 
 
 have been Herod's real motive, and the alleged fear of insur- 
 rectionary movements only the pretext. The doctrines that 
 John taught, — revolutionary doctrines as they would be 
 termed in modern phraseology, — and the fact that he was, 
 apparently, organizing a secret society, in which any one 
 might be enrolled upon submitting to certain ceremonies, 
 would be amply sufficient to excite the suspicions of Herod, 
 and to prompt the measures which he adopted. To us, the 
 Kingdom of Heaven means, either the Kingdom of God in 
 heaven, or his spiritual kingdom upon earth, in the hearts of 
 the faithful ; and, with our limited modern experience, we are 
 disposed to regard the preaching of this Kingdom as eminently 
 favourable to peace and order. Yery different, however, was 
 the light in which it would appear to Herod and his advisers. 
 For, to the Jews, the Kingdom of Heaven meant, primarily, 
 the establishment of the visible Kingdom of Jehovah at Jeru- 
 salem, and their own liberation under the leadership of the 
 Messiah. Such a doctrine could not be publicly preached in 
 his dominions, without exciting apprehensions, which would 
 become strengthened in proportion to the success of the 
 preacher. It was only natural, therefore, that he should, as 
 Josephus relates, have decided to crush the movement before 
 it had attained any formidable proportions, by the seizure and 
 execution of the leader ; and, possibly, also by the dispersion 
 of his followers. 
 
 The story of the death of John, as we read it in the Gospels, 
 is precisely such a legend as obtains currency among the popu- 
 lace, who are always ready to find petty personal motives at the 
 bottom of all public proceedings. The curious in such matters 
 may find numerous analogous instances, both in history, so- 
 called, and in fable. The whole picture of the scene at which 
 the death of John was decided — the banquet — the youthful 
 maiden called in to dance for the gratification of the guests — 
 the extravagant admiration of the monarch — and the fatal oath 
 it prompts — the suggestion of Herodias — the request of her 
 
160 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 daughter — the regret, and hesitation, and final compliance of the 
 King — the tragic end of the Baptist — and the severed head 
 brought upon a dish into the hall of feasting — show throughout 
 the shaping influence of the legend. It is quite possible, per- 
 haps upon the whole most probable, that the only elements of 
 truth in the whole story are, that Herod had contracted a mar- 
 riage which seemed to his subjects to justify, and even to 
 demand, the reprobation of such a preacher of righteousness as 
 John, and that, in fact, John was imprisoned and put to death 
 by his orders : the connection between these two events, and the 
 mode in which the sentence of death was procured, being due 
 entirely to the transforming power of the popular imagination. 
 
 The Synoptical Gospels concur in representing Jesus as 
 having been attracted from Galilee by the report of the preach- 
 ing of John, and as having received baptism at his hands. 
 And they all agree in stating that on the occasion of his baptism 
 the Holy Spirit descended upon him.' It is, however, oj)en to 
 question whether the descent of the Spirit was intended to be 
 represented as having been visible to the bystanders, or only to 
 Jesus ; and, on the whole, the latter is the more probable con- 
 clusion. Certainly there is nothing in any of these Gospels to 
 show that the attention either of the people or of John was spe- 
 cially directed to Jesus by the occurrence, or that any persons 
 were induced to attach themselves to him on account of their 
 having witnessed it. And this appears to furnish an answer 
 to the various rationalistic explanations of the circumstance, 
 regarded as some real outward event, misunderstood by the 
 crowd. It is not easy to explain how anything so wonderful, 
 which the spectators must be supposed to have understood as 
 marking so emphatic a recognition of the divine character of 
 
 ' The ao-rcemcnt of the fourth Gospel in the representation that Jesus visited John, 
 shews that this fact was too firmly rooted in Christian tradition to be omitted, but 
 the modifications introduced into tlic account indicate that at that time the difficul- 
 ties connected with the reception of baptism by Jesus were beginning to be felt. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 161 
 
 Jesus, could have been entirely forgotten. A visible and audible 
 manifestation, such as is usually assumed, must assuredly have 
 left some trace upon the future history ; and could scarcely have 
 passed so completely out of memory that no one among the multi- 
 tudes with whom he was brought into contact during his public 
 career, ever founded or justified a recognition of his claims 
 upon this ground. If, indeed, it is understood as designed to 
 indicate only an impression received by Jesus himself, that the 
 form and the voice was perceived by him alone ; then it may be 
 no more than a symbolical representation of the belief afterwards 
 entertained that he was at this moment endowed with the Spirit 
 of God, and thus impelled and enabled to devote himself to his 
 work.^ 
 
 It is possible, if the baptism of Jesus was really a turning 
 point in his life, — if, awakened or stimulated by the preaching 
 of John, he had at this moment formed the resolution and em- 
 braced the idea that were thenceforth to be the animating princi- 
 ples of his life, — that he might have referred to the subject in such 
 a manner as to give rise to the belief subsequently entertained. 
 But it is also possible that we have here only an instance of the 
 gradual development of the legend, which required that this act 
 of Jesus, in which he appeared for the moment in a position of 
 inferiority to John, should be invested with circumstances that 
 might make it the occasion of manifesting only the more signally 
 his intrinsic superiority. And the latter supposition appears the 
 more probable. There is no reason for supposing that the rite 
 of baptism was in reality a crisis in the life of Jesus ; and there 
 were abimdant dogmatic motives for the formation of such a 
 narrative as we possess ; especially, as we may infer, that it was 
 
 1 As a sensible miracle it is pm-poseless and inconceivable ; purposeless, for it pro- 
 duced no effect upon John, or Ms disciples, or the multitude ; and inconceivable, for 
 there is a palpable contradiction in the idea of a divine spiritual manifestation, 
 bounded by a material form, and becoming visible to the eyes of the multitude. And 
 this contradiction becomes, if possible, more flagrant if we adopt the popular supposi- 
 tion that the third person in the Trinity — God, in short — became incarnate in the 
 form of a dove. This may be termed irreverent or blasphemous. Surely, however, the 
 tnie irreverence, or blasphemy, is in those who entertain such an idea, not in him who 
 exhibits it in its true character. 
 
 11 
 
162 THE JFSTS OF HISTOKY. 
 
 during his residence with the Baptist that the impressions were 
 received which afterwards induced Jesus to become himself the 
 preacher of the kingdom. 
 
 Immediately following the account of the baptism is that of 
 the temptation. Whatever interpretation may be put upon the 
 narrative, it would seem that the retirement into the desert is to 
 be regarded as a period of preparation for the work in which he 
 was about to engage. And it would be only natural that some 
 method of preparation should be adopted. There is nothing in any 
 of the Gospels to indicate that Jesus, previous to his baptism, had 
 done anything to direct attention to himself, or to lead the people 
 to anticipate the position which he subsequently assumed. Pro- 
 bably, therefore, his purpose to become the preacher of the king- 
 dom might be one for the accomplishment of which he felt that he 
 was not at the moment suflBciently qualified. It might be needful 
 that a period of meditation — reading, prayer, and self-discipline 
 — should be passed through before he could venture to present 
 himself to his countrymen. Whether the account of the tempta- 
 tion answers to any real incidents occurring during this period,^ 
 or symbolizes any actual mental struggles; or whether it is a 
 mere mythical representation growing out of the later views, 
 as to the antagonism between the devil, as the representative 
 of the powers of this world, and Jesus as the appointed head 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven, which led the disciples to assume 
 that this must have been exhibited in the beginning by assaidts 
 or temptations successfully resisted, it is impossible now to do 
 more than conjecture. There is nothing intrinsically impro- 
 bable in the suggestion recently made, that Jesus might have 
 described the mental temptations by which he was assailed, 
 while meditating his great enterprise, in language that, to the 
 limited apprehensions of his followers, gave a colour to the 
 views exhibited in the story. This is, after all, only an hypo- 
 
 ^ Such as suggested by some rationalizing commentators of emissaries to enlist him 
 in the service of the Jewish rulers or others. These, however, would imply a 
 notoriety then attaching to Jesus which the story, by implication, contradicts. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 163 
 
 thesis, which saves the sincerity of the evangelists at the 
 expense of their understanding ; and would compel us to ask 
 how far we can receive any relation they have given of the 
 teaching of Jesus, when, in this particular, they could so grossly 
 misapprehend him. 
 
 The only absolutely certain conclusion upon the subject is> 
 that the events could not have occurred as narrated. That 
 the devil should have power, miraculously, to transport the 
 body of Jesus from place to place — from the desert to the 
 pinnacles of the Temple, and from the Temple to a high 
 mountain — is as inconceivable upon theological as upon physi- 
 cal grounds, to those who regard Jesus as God, as to those who 
 look merely to the properties of matter and the laws of gravi- 
 tation. For, upon the orthodox view, it would imply either 
 that Satan has power to work real miracles, even upon the 
 Deity itself, or that God endowed him with that power upon 
 this occasion. The former must surely be rejected by every 
 true believer. The latter reduces the whole affair to a mockery, 
 in which Satan is at once the tempter and the tool of Divinity, 
 and Jesus the conscious contriving agent of his own tempta- 
 tion. It can, therefore, only be received by the ignorant or 
 wilfvd credulity of those who renounce all exercise of reason 
 upon matters which they are told, or have persuaded them- 
 selves, that it is their duty to believe. And such persons 
 have no right to scoif at the believers in modern miracles, or 
 to reject the marvels of witchcraft.^ 
 
 We conclude, then, that Jesus became a disciple of John, 
 and was baptized by' him — that the earliest form of Christian 
 tradition represented him as previously unknown, and as hav- 
 
 ' It might seem that any exposure of the incredibility and profaneness of the 
 narrative, taken literally, is needless. But modern commentators [e.g. Dean Alfordl 
 still reproduce the old interpretations, and, recently, in a weekly publication for the 
 Sabbath reading of the young, the subject is illusti-ated by an engraving, in which a 
 grotesque mediicval devil is pointing out the kingdoms of the world to an obviously 
 divine Jesus. What right have such men to complain of the spread of Ritualism, 
 when they do all in their power to keep the minds of their readers upon the precise 
 level of thought and feeling to which Ritualism appeals ? 
 
164 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 ing received tlie impulse and inspiration that led him to devote 
 himself to his work, and qualified him for its performance, at 
 the moment of his baptism ; — that this purpose was, in fact, 
 formed while he was with John, and that it was probably- 
 succeeded by a period of retirement, during which it was 
 matured and confirmed, amid many internal struggles. This 
 seems to be little ; but it is as much as we have any right to 
 expect to know ; and, unless we are prepared to accept the 
 marvels of the Apocryphal Gospels, this is as much as we can 
 know. For, even if we receive whatever the Synoptical Gospels 
 relate, it is still clear, from the subsequent history, that nothing 
 had occurred in the life of Jesus, before his public appearance 
 as a preacher, to prepare his countrymen to receive him in that 
 capacity. And the only difference would be to make the in- 
 spiration he received due to some palpable and visible imper- 
 sonation of the Spirit, and the struggles to be with temptations 
 without, instead of trials and difficulties within. 
 
 There are, however, questions suggested by this brief sum- 
 mary to which we may attempt an answer. We may, probably, 
 assume that Jesus had received, at least, the ordinary education 
 of a Jew, whose circumstances, though humble, according to 
 our western ideas, were still easy ; that he had become familiar 
 with the Hebrew Scriptures, and that he had learned some- 
 thing of the tradition of the Scribes. Probably, he had 
 followed the trade of his father, Joseph ; and it may be re- 
 garded as certain that, if he had not shewn any qualities that 
 led his family, his friends, or the public, to expect his appear- 
 ance as a teacher, there was nothing in his character or conduct 
 that could be urged to his discredit. Presumably, he had 
 become dissatisfied with the traditional interpretation of the 
 Scriptures that were current among the recognized teachers of 
 the day, and felt the need of something that should restore to 
 Psalmist and Prophet their primitive significance, and even 
 give to them a higher and more spiritual sense. With these 
 feelings, too, were associated impatience at the protracted do- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 165 
 
 minion of the Gentiles, and aspirations for the establishment 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven.^ Some such feelings we may- 
 assume to have been the motives for his journey from Galilee 
 to the Jordan, for the purpose of listening to the preaching 
 of John. And we are further compelled to believe that he 
 also felt the need of that " baptism for the remission of sins," 
 in view of the coming kingdom which John preached. Upon 
 any other supposition it is inconceivable that Jesus should have 
 submitted to the rite, unless, indeed, we attribute to him a 
 degree, not merely of dissimulation, but of simul.ation, strangely 
 at variance with the orthodox view of his character, which 
 nothing in his history appears to justify. 
 
 The people who gathered around John and became his dis- 
 ciples were baptized, "confessing their sins," and the baptism 
 was that of " repentance to the remission of sins." Jesus, 
 therefore, on being baptized, must have been understood by 
 all who witnessed the ceremony, or were made aware that it 
 had been performed, to have confessed his sins, and to have 
 been baptized for their remission. And even if we could 
 suppose the formal protest of John, related in the first Gospel, 
 to have preceded the ceremony (though, if so, it is not easy 
 to understand why it should have been omitted from the second 
 and third) ; yet this, while it implies John's recognition of the 
 superiority of Jesus, does not, and cannot, imply the attribu- 
 tion of absolute sinlessness. At the utmost, it suggested a 
 relative superiority, founded, it may be, upon intuition, or 
 upon previous knowledge or repute, but certainly not the pos- 
 session by Jesus of that perfect goodness which every pious 
 Jew believed, and which he himself afterwards declared, to be 
 the attribute of one only — that is, God. And even if any 
 one should assume that it did involve this, and that John 
 was so pure and holy, that no one having the slightest stain 
 
 1 According to the received chronology, Jesus would, probably, have been nearly 
 ten years of age at the time of the revolt of Judas. Quite old enough, therefore, 
 to receive an indelible impression from the incidents he witnessed, and the feelings 
 expressed by those among whom he dwelt. 
 
166 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 of sin could be his superior (an assumption contradicted by 
 the declaration of Jesus, that the least in the Kingdom of 
 Heaven was greater than John), then the two would be re- 
 presented as profaning a solemn rite by employing it when it 
 was nothing but a mockery, and as deceiving .the multitude 
 by falsely holding Jesus out to them as a person who needed 
 that his sins should be confessed, and should be washed away 
 by the baptismal water. "We can form no other conclusion, 
 therefore, than that Jesus recognized his human infirmity and 
 his actual shortcomings, and, consequently, felt that he also 
 needed to be baptized, confessing his sins. 
 
 It would be interesting to know, if that were practicable, how 
 long Jesus remained with John, and to what extent he learned 
 from him. It has been suggested that his stay was but brief, 
 and that he speedily became dissatisfied with the meagreness 
 and insufficiency of John's doctrine.^ Perhaps, however, it is 
 more probable that he remained until the preaching of the 
 Baptist was cut short by his imprisonment, and that the distinc- 
 tion he afterwards drew between his manner of life and that of 
 his precursor was due rather to after- development, than to a 
 difference that existed during their intercourse. And this view 
 is seemingly confirmed by the circumstance that in the fourth 
 Gospel Jesus is described, in opposition to the earlier G-ospels, 
 as having begun his public ministry before the imprisonment of 
 John; a statement which has no historical probability, and 
 appears to have been suggested by a desire to represent the 
 teaching of Jesus as more independent of that of John than 
 was actually the case. It must be left undetermined whether 
 Jesus separated himself from John while the latter was at 
 liberty and continued to preach, or whether his determination 
 to make known the good news of the coming kingdom was 
 formed after the career of John had been cut short, and when, 
 consequently, the work would have ceased had not Jesus 
 
 ' The opinion that the teaching of John was meagre and insufficient, rests appar- 
 ently upon nothing but the arbitrary assumption that the precepts attributed to him in 
 the third Gospel form a complete summary of his doctrine. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 167 
 
 been prepared to take it up. The former view ratter results 
 from the actual form of the narrative in the first three Gospels ; 
 but the latter would seem to be the more probable, from the cir- 
 cumstance in which they all agree, that the preaching of Jesus 
 did not actually commence until after he had been made aware 
 of the imprisonment of John. 
 
 Between, however, his resolve and its realization there was 
 that interval to which we have referred, described by the Evan- 
 gelists as being led by (Matthew), or in (Luke) the Spirit, or 
 being driven by the Spirit (Mark) into the wilderness, and 
 being tempted by the Devil. Into the solitary musings and 
 struggles of that period we have no reliable means of entering. 
 Thus far we are safe in going. Jesus knew that he was 
 devoting himself to a work of labour, suffering, and peril. 
 He had the record of the fate of those who had preceded him, 
 and from this he might learn to anticipate the doom that pro- 
 bably awaited himself. The lesson which these examples taught 
 was presumably intensified by the imprisonment that had be- 
 fallen and the death that threatened the Baptist. He himself 
 was about to encounter the scorn of the Pharisees, whose tradi- 
 tions he disregarded, and whose ritualism he opposed ; and 
 the enmity of the Sadducees, whose conservative tendencies he 
 rudely assailed ; and his conduct would provoke the jealousy of the 
 rulers of the land. He had no hope of support but in the mul- 
 titude, excitable and easily moved, but incapable of combined 
 action, and slow to receive any permanent impression — ready 
 to welcome and crowd around any one who should come to them 
 preaching the arrival of the acceptable time, and equally readj'' 
 to desert him. in the period of trial and danger ; hearing the word 
 of the kingdom, and with joy receiving it, but having no root in 
 themselves, and falling away when persecution arose. And we 
 cannot but suppose that, previous to his final decision, Jesus had 
 weighed all these contingencies, and had counted the cost of the 
 enterprise. 
 
 There are, it is true, indications of a brief period of popularity, 
 
1()8 THE JESIJS OF HISTORY. 
 
 after he had entered upon his public functions, which seems abnost 
 to have led him to hope that he might escape the doom that had 
 befallen so many of his predecessors ; but, in the interval between 
 the conception of his undertaking and its actual commencement, 
 although, doubtless, he was animated by the hope of success, 
 he could not but anticipate the possibility of failure ; and he 
 must have prepared himself to encounter that contingency with 
 all that it involved. He might not be able to foresee whether 
 his death, should he be doomed to die, was to be due to the 
 hostility of the men of tradition, or to the fears of the conserva- 
 tive party, or to the stern repression of the Roman Governors ; 
 but, in entering upon a course that would bring him into conflict 
 with all of these, he could not but expect death at the hands of 
 one or other. It is, therefore, easy to understand that his ultimate 
 resolution was preceded by many doubts and much hesitation^ and 
 even that his internal struggles might appear to him, as similar 
 struggles did afterwards to Luther in a like interval of solitude 
 and inaction, as in part the result of Satanic suggestions, and, 
 indeed, as implying the actual bodily presence of the adversary. 
 We do not, on that account, suppose that the narrative 
 we possess, in the extended form in which it is presented in 
 the first and third Gospels, is founded upon any details fur- 
 nished by Jesus himself. This might be the shape which the 
 general statement that he was tempted of the devil, if it were 
 made, might assume in the popular report. If Jesus himself 
 had described his temptations, they would assuredly have been 
 of a different character. For, in their actual shape, they 
 would have exerted little of seductive influence upon his mind.^ 
 
 ' There is sometliing very attractive in the suggestion that the first temptation (in 
 the first Gospel) was that Jesus should employ his power of working miracles for his 
 own personal comfort, and not for the purpose of his mission ; the second, that he 
 should disregard all natural laws in reliance upon divine support ; and the third, that 
 he should purchase success for his enterprise by unworthy compliance with the false- 
 hood or formalism of the age. But these are ideas that would not have suggested them- 
 selves to the generation in which the narrative originated, and would really have been 
 unintelligible to them. And, it is obvious, that these forms of temptation were selected 
 not with reference to any ideal meaning they might convey, but to the texts by citing 
 which Jesus repelled the tempter. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 169 
 
 And, after all, it is only a matter of conjecture that Jesus really 
 believed himself to have been so tempted. We can, however, 
 scarcely be mistaken in supposing that he, who in his brief after 
 career so forcibly taught the necessity of calculating beforehand 
 all that was involved in an enterprise, who knew the insecurity 
 and fleeting character of popular support, and the fate reserved 
 for all prophets, had in this critical moment weighed his own 
 resources, and the difficulties and danger of the contemplated 
 undertaking. 
 
 From the whole narrative, then, we infer that Jesus, before he 
 withdrew to the desert, was a disciple of John, unknown and un- 
 distinguished from the other disciples, and with no apparent 
 purpose of emerging from obscurity, and that after his retire- 
 ment he came forth to assume the place that had become vacant 
 by the imprisonment of John, and to commence the career that 
 led to Gethsemane and Calvary. It is probable, therefore, that 
 the teaching of John gave form and consistency to the thoughts 
 which had led Jesus from Galilee to become his disciple ; that the 
 imprisonment of John suggested the necessity that some one 
 should take up the work which had been interrupted by his 
 removal ; that an inward consciousness of fitness impelled Jesus 
 to assume the place ; and that the retirement into solitude was 
 the needful self- preparation for the difiiculty and danger of the 
 task. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE HERALD OF THE KINGDOM. 
 
 The first public appearance of Jesus after leaving the retreat 
 to whicli he is represented as having withdrawn, subsequently 
 to his baptism, took place in Galilee. News of the imjjrison- 
 ment of John are stated to have reached him in his retirement, 
 and to have decided him to come forth and assume the functions 
 that the Baptist had been compelled to relinquish. And his 
 original doctrine is stated to have been identical with that pre- 
 viously taught by John — Repentance, in view of the immediate 
 coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.^ 
 
 The course pursued by Jesus di£Pered from that of John 
 in two particulars, which would at once indicate a marked 
 distinction between them in the popular apprehension. He dis- 
 couraged asceticism, both practically and in his teaching, and 
 he did not form any society. With regard to the former of 
 these there can be no question ; and the latter seems to be 
 clearly indicated by the history. Throughout the first Gospel 
 the term "disciples" is almost always employed to designate 
 the twelve, or at least a narrow circle closely attached to the 
 person of Jesus, — always, in fact, unless in the introduction to 
 the Sermon on the Mount, where the context compels us to give 
 it a wider signification. And there is nowhere in the Synoj)tics 
 a hint of any ceremony of initiation, or of anything that implies 
 
 1 Matt. iii. 1, 2. " In those days came John the Baptist preaching, and saying, 
 Eepent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." iv. 17. " From that time Jesus 
 began to preach, and to say, Ilepeat, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 171 
 
 the admission of members into a society. The mark of a disciple 
 appears to have been that he should leave all and follow Jesus, 
 and this seems only to have been required or permitted in the 
 case of the twelve. His teaching, however, was not, at any rate 
 at first, confined to this narrow circle. All men might listen to 
 his discourses, and from them might learn the conditions of 
 entrance into the kingdom, and we have no grounds for sup- 
 posing that junction with a visible society formed any part of 
 these conditions. The silence of Jesus upon this point, and 
 the entire absence in the Synoptical Gospels of all reference to 
 any form of admission, appear to prove conclusively that no 
 society was, in fact, constituted. 
 
 This might, perhaps, be due, in part, to considerations of expe- 
 diency, and, in part, to a matured conviction that the Kingdom 
 of Heaven was to be established "not by might nor by power" 
 of man, but by the sole instrumentality of Jehovah. Every 
 previous efibrt for its foundation had failed, solely because of the 
 human elements it embraced. Even John, though relying pri- 
 marily on moral influences, had been imprisoned because he had 
 attempted to aid these by organizing his disciples. And any 
 similar proceeding could not but arouse the suspicion of the 
 authorities, and force an excuse for their interference ; a consi- 
 deration of these circumstances might naturally inspire a doubt 
 whether human agencies could, in fact, -be necessary, whatever 
 might be the popular feelings upon the subject. When the Son 
 of Man was manifested in the clouds of heaven, he would surely 
 not require any help from man, for his own power would suffice 
 to overcome all resistance. What, therefore, was wanted, in 
 view of the coming kingdom, was not an external organization, 
 but repentance and amendment. God might be trusted to do 
 his own work, and all that was necessary for men was that they 
 should qualify themselves by a change of heart and of life to 
 share in the promised blessings. 
 
 There is nothing in any of the Gospels to explain the reasons 
 which induced Jesus to select Galilee as the scene of his labours. 
 
172 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Xone of them suggest that any persecution was directed against 
 the followers of John. It is not improbable, however, that his 
 arrest was followed by measures for the dispersion of his dis- 
 ciples ; and, if not, Jesus might well have feared lest the same 
 motives, whether real or assumed, of apprehension for the 
 public tranquillity, that had been alleged by Herod as his 
 ground for imprisoning John, might lead him at once to 
 prevent any one from preaching the same doctrine in the 
 same place. Or, it might be, that he anticipated a more 
 favourable reception in the district in which he had grown up, 
 and where he was personally known. Possibly, both of these 
 considerations had their influence. There must have been 
 abundant reason to dread the interposition of Herod ; and Jesus 
 might well have supposed, until enlightened by experience, that 
 those who had witnessed the promise of his youth would be 
 favourably disposed towards him in the new character he was 
 about to assume. He might even anticipate that they would 
 welcome him the more readily, because of the lustre his preach- 
 ing would confer upon the country of which he was a native. 
 Whatever were his motives, he abandoned the field in which 
 John had laboured, and returned to Galilee, where he at once 
 commenced preaching. 
 
 The first act of Jesus, after the assumption of his public 
 functions, as recorded in the two earliest Gospels, is the calling 
 of four of his disciples — Simon, who was surnamed Peter, and 
 Andrew his brother, the sons of Jona ; and James and John, 
 his brother, the sons of Zebedee, all of whom were fishermen, 
 and resided on the shores of the Lake of Gennessaret. Then, 
 of these, Peter, and James, and John, appear in the earliest 
 accoimts to have been especially distinguished by Jesus ; hav- 
 ing been selected by him as his companions in some of the most 
 noticeable incidents of his Kfe. The manner of their calling, as 
 represented in the first Gospel, forcibly illustrates the recollec- 
 tion retained by the disciples of the excitement produced by the 
 early preaching of Jesus, and the enthusiasm awakened towards 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 173 
 
 himself. There is a single peremptory summons addressed to 
 each ; and, without hesitation or delay, they leave their father 
 and their business and devote themselves to Jesus, with a con- 
 stancy that never appears to have wavered, excepting upon the 
 fatal night in which he was betrayed into the hands of his 
 enemies. 
 
 This is one of the instances in which there is a profound 
 and irreconcilable difference between the first and the fourth 
 Gospels.^ It is not necessary to repeat the reasons, already 
 assigned, for regarding the latter as unworthy of credit. There 
 are some persons who argue that a previous connection be- 
 tween Jesus and these disciples, similar to that described in 
 the fourth Gospel, is necessary, in order to render intelligible 
 the call by Jesus, and its instantaneous acceptance.^ Surely 
 this is not required, either from the orthodox, or from 
 the human point of view. For, if able, supernaturally, to 
 imderstand the character and motives of men, and to influ- 
 ence their will and their conduct, Jesus could have needed 
 no previous acquaintance in order to enable him to exercise 
 this power. And, if not, there is nothing incredible, or even 
 improbable, in the suggestion that his own natural faculty 
 might enable him to see in these men, in spite of their obscure 
 lives and lowly callings, those elements of obedience, and faith, 
 and devotion, which would qualify them to be his disciples, with- 
 out requiring that another should send them to him for the 
 purpose. Few things, perhaps, more distinctively characterize 
 those men who are born to impress the stamp of their own 
 individuality upoA. the ideas and institutions of the future, than 
 the apparently intuitive manner in which they are able to re- 
 cognize in others the existence of those qualities that will 
 
 1 Irreconcilable; that is, if we regard the spirit and intention of the -writers, 
 though, no doubt, capable of being reconciled if we look to the mere facts they 
 relate. 
 
 2 Even m the third Gospel a previous miracle is imagined, in order to explain the 
 immediate obedience of the disciples. This is one of the instances that shew the 
 later composition of that Gospel. 
 
174 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 render them useful allies and instruments, and the facility 
 with which they are able to attract and attach such men to 
 themselves. "We need not suppose that Jesus had not pre- 
 viously known or been known by the men whom he thus 
 selected. On the contrary, the history would imply that they 
 had grown up together in the same neighbourhood. They 
 might even have been disciples of John at the same time. 
 But it empties the original account of all significance to as- 
 sume that the relation of Master and disciple had previously 
 existed, and that all Jesus did on the occasion of calling them, 
 was to announce that the time had arrived when he required 
 their more immediate services. That account is most in ac- 
 cordance with the conception we should form of the character 
 and influence of Jesus, from the memorials that have been 
 preserved to us; and if, as is probable, it has been, to some 
 extent, coloured by the medium through which it was trans- 
 mitted, it is at once more consistent and more probable than 
 that which it is proposed to substitute in its place. 
 
 The incidents related in the first Gospel, as occurring in this 
 stage of the public ministry of Jesus, are very few. After 
 calling the four disciples, he traverses the whole of Galilee, 
 teaching in the synagogues, preaching the good news of the 
 Kingdom, and healing diseases. The report of his preaching 
 and cures draws around him multitudes from all the surround- 
 ing country, — from Judaea, and from Jerusalem itself. To 
 these he addresses a body of precepts, which are summed up 
 in the Sermon on the Mount; which, by their depth and 
 originality, and, possibly, still more by the circumstance that 
 they were not based upon tradition, but depended upon the 
 authority of the teacher, and upon their own intrinsic power 
 to command the assent of the understanding and the con- 
 science, deepened an impression in his favour. There is also 
 a record of specific miracles of healing, of stilling the tempest, 
 and of casting out devils. Then there is the first hint of dis- 
 satisfaction occasioned by his assuming to absolve from sins. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 175 
 
 Then he calls Matthew, the publican, to be his disciple, and 
 accepts his hospitality ; and sends out the twelve apostles as 
 his emissaries, to preach the Gospel beyond the boundaries of 
 Galilee. After this, John the Baptist, from his prison, sends 
 messengers to learn the character in which he claims to appear. 
 And there are at last indications of a reaction, which, aided by 
 the opposition of the Pharisees, goes on, apparently gathering 
 strength, until he leaves Galilee. 
 
 In a subsequent chapter we shall attempt to appreciate the 
 character of the doctrines taught by Jesus, and we, consequently, 
 pass them over for the present, confining ourselves to an ex- 
 amination of the facts of the history. Everything appears 
 to suggest that the success of the new preaching was, in the 
 first instance, considerable, and that great enthusiasm was 
 excited by the teacher himself, as well as by his doctrine. 
 And this enthusiasm appears to have been intensified by the 
 performance of cures that were deemed miraculous. It would 
 be impossible, with the materials we possess, to determine with 
 certainty their precise nature, or by what means they were 
 efiected. Our ignorance in this respect i?, however, no reason 
 for doubting that Jesus did, in truth, perform sudden and 
 wonderful cures, whether permanent or not, at any rate in 
 cases of nervous disorders, and, principally, in those which the 
 superstition of the time attributed to demoniacal possession. 
 The exercise of a similar power, by many of the medigeval 
 saints (to confine ourselves within the limits of Christian 
 tradition), has been described by eye-witnesses, under circum- 
 stances that forbid us to disbelieve their statements. We are, 
 therefore, justified in assuming the existence of the power, and 
 in referring it to some exceptional natural influence,^ though 
 its nature and the mode of its operation are still obscure. And 
 we may be quite certain that, if Jesus really did work such 
 cures, the exaggerating tongue of rumour would multiply and 
 
 1 Probably akin to what is known as animal magnetism. 
 
176 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 ao-o-randize his performances; for this is the invariable course 
 of events. 
 
 It would be idle to attempt to disentangle the nucleus 
 of fact from the surrounding atmosphere of legend, or to 
 discriminate, in particular cases, between that which is credible 
 and the reverse, Nor would such a discrimination, even if 
 practicable, avail for the purposes of the present enquiry ; 
 for the fact that a given event, regarded as miraculous by those 
 who relate it, appears credible to us under a certain aspect, or 
 with certain deductions, is no ground for believing that it 
 actually occurred. It is better, at once, to confess our ignor- 
 ance, than to attempt explanations which, however plausible, 
 it is impossible to verify. There is no doubt that every detail 
 of a legendary narrative, even in its most distorted form, is 
 due to some element of fact or of feeling, capable, if we had 
 the requisite materials, of being understood and explained — 
 just as the shifting forms and colours of the clouds, under the 
 influence of the shaping wind and the illuminating sun, have 
 all their determining causes. And in a rough general way 
 we may be able, in either case, to understand the operating 
 laws, and to point out the mode of their operation. If, how- 
 ever, we endeavour to do more than this, we are inevitably 
 baffled, not less by the complexity of the phenomena, than by 
 our want of knowledge of some of the influencing elements ; 
 and hence whatever theory may be formed necessarily fails in 
 some particular. With regard to the miracles attributed to 
 Jesus, it is possible that natural events, imperfectly understood 
 at first, and made more marvellous with every repetition of 
 the story, may be the basis of some of the accounts. Un- 
 conscious invention, as when a figure was transformed into 
 a fact, or a parable accepted as a history, may have been the 
 source of others. The belief that, as Jesus was the equal or 
 the superior of the old prophets, he must have performed 
 works similar to or greater than they, or that, as the Messiah, 
 he must have done whatever the Messiah was expected to do. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 177 
 
 may account for some. Sometimes, especially in the fourth 
 Gospel, it is difficult not to suspect conscious invention, at 
 least in the details. And there may have been other in- 
 fluences, of which we know nothing. Whoever thinks that 
 because an anonymous narrative, composed from thirty to 
 forty years after the occurrences it records, and in a different 
 place, has been copied by other writers and has received the 
 sanction of the Chiu'ch, it is therefore sufficient to prove that 
 new matter, or new force, was created, as in the case of 
 the miraculous feedings of the multitude ; or that the laws 
 of gravitation were suspended, as in the case of walking on 
 the water; or that physical power was exerted by the wlQ 
 upon the waves of the sea ; or that the dead were raised to 
 life, will accept all the narratives with equally implicit faith. 
 And those who do not so think may, nevertheless, be con- 
 vinced that there was something in the character, and acts, 
 and doctrine of Jesus that predisposed a credulous age to be- 
 lieve in his performance of such wonders, and may accept that 
 belief as, in some degree, a proof of his intrinsic superiority. 
 
 There may, no doubt, also be a third class. Some may deny 
 that any actual miracle has been performed, and yet may give 
 so much credit to the details of the narrative as to suppose 
 that Jesus claimed miraculous power ; that though in some in- 
 stances deceived, he was, in others, a conscious deceiver ; — and 
 that for the purpose of satisfying the raised expectations of 
 his disciples and the multitude, he condescended to act the 
 part of the charlatan and quack, if not of the intentional 
 impostor. If the alternative lay between the last and the 
 first of the conclusions we have indicated, so that we were 
 compelled to assume that Jesus professed to have done all that 
 is related of him, and had only to determine whether the al- 
 leged miracles were real or pretended, there might be a reason- 
 able ground for the last hypothesis. It must be obvious to 
 any one who carefully weighs the nature and limits of testi- 
 mony, that the narratives we possess do not satisfy the con- 
 
 12 
 
178 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 ditions of proof of such events, if taken to be miraculous. 
 And it will always be more probable that an enthusiastic re- 
 former should sanction a pious fraud, than that he should be 
 able to create new matter, or by his mere volition, and, apart 
 from the ordinary material antecedents, set in motion and 
 control the forces of nature. But, in fact, the very admission 
 that the evidence is not to be believed, because it does not 
 suffice to prove the supernatural, forms a sufficient reason for 
 discrediting it altogether, so far as these incidents are concerned. 
 There can be no doubt that this very supernatural character of 
 the acts in question was what the writers understood and in- 
 tended to convey. It is, therefore, altogether unreasonable to 
 refuse credit to them in that which they regarded as the es- 
 sential feature of the story, and, nevertheless, to insist upon 
 their substantial accuracy in the details, which, to them, 
 were merely accessory. And this is especially the case when 
 their assumed accuracy in details is made the foundation of 
 an attack upon the intelligence or honesty of the subject of 
 their biography. At the lowest, it is illogical and arbitrary 
 to insist upon saving the credit of the anonymous authors of 
 the Gospels for historical correctness, at the expense of the 
 integrity of Jesus. We know nothing of the former that 
 would lead us to believe them to be above the common opinions 
 of the day, or to suppose that they would be unwilling to re- 
 late any incident current among the disciples, without sci'uti- 
 nizing the evidence upon which it rested. We do, however, 
 know enough of Jesus, in the doctrines he taught, and the 
 impressions he produced upon those brought into contact with 
 him, to lead us to believe that his views of the obligations of 
 truthfulness and honesty were far above those of the majority 
 of his contemporaries. It is, therefore, more probable that the 
 Gospel narratives in these particulars are mistaken or exagger- 
 ated, than that, on the one hand, actual miracles were wrought, 
 or, on the other, that Jesus falsely pretended to work them. ^ 
 
 ^ Even if I believed, with M. Renan, that the Apostle John was the author of the 
 fourth Gospel, I should still rather suppose that in a place where he could exercise 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORT. 
 
 179 
 
 This conclusion is strengthened by various other considera- 
 tions. The miracles related in the Synoptics are alleged to 
 have been performed in Galilee, and the first Gospel was com- 
 posed in Jerusalem. It does not, therefore, as commonly as- 
 sumed, represent the Galilaean tradition, but that of the Church 
 in Jerusalem. The others were composed, probably, at Rome ; 
 certainly, outside of Judaea. They have, consequently, no 
 support from the assumed belief of the people in whose pre- 
 sence the works were wrought, testified by the existence of 
 such a tradition among them. On the contrary, the mission 
 of Jesus, so far as Galilee is concerned, appears to have ended 
 in failure. There is no record in history, or tradition in the 
 Acts,^ or in the early Fathers, of the existence of any Church 
 in Galilee.2 And almost the last words spoken by Jesus, in 
 reference to the people of that district, contain the mournful 
 protest and emphatic denunciation of Chorazin, and Bethsaida, 
 and Capernaum, — the cities in which he had preached and 
 wrought his marvellous works. It was in reference to these, 
 also, that he drew the contrast between the men of Nineveh, 
 who repented at the preaching of Jonah, and the Queen of 
 the South, who came to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and the 
 generation that repented not, though in the presence of a 
 greater than either. It is true that we are not warranted in 
 relying upon the verbal accuracy of the report of these 
 sayings. We are, however, justified in regarding them as evi- 
 dencing the ultimate incredulity with which the pretensions of 
 Jesus were regarded among those who, according to the 
 earliest accounts, had witnessed the whole of the wonders 
 that he wrought.^ Without pressing this argument, it is 
 
 his fancy without check or control, he had invented the account of the raising of 
 Lazarus, than that Jesus actually took part in such a scene as M. Renan describes. 
 ^ Excepting one passage upon which no one would venture to build, Acts ix., 31. 
 
 2 M. Eenan, in "Les Apotres," assumes that there must have been, but he admits 
 that there is no proof of any sort that there was such a church. 
 
 3 It is not without significance, under this aspect of the case, that, in the earliest 
 forms of the account of the resurrection of Jesus (Matt, xxviii., 7-10 ; Mark xvi., 
 6, 7), Galilee is intimated as the place in which the disciples were to see him — imply- 
 ing that they did not see him in Jerusalem. 
 
180 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 obvious that we are not entitled to draw any inference as to 
 the reality of the miracles alleged to have been wrought by 
 Jesus, on the ground that the people among whom they were 
 wrought, on that account, believed in him as the Messiah, for 
 there is no evidence that they did so believe. 
 
 There is another circumstance bearing upon this question 
 that must not be left out of sight. The Scribes and Pharisees 
 are represented as opposing Jesus, and as rejecting his claim 
 to be a divinely commissioned teacher. They admitted that 
 he cast out devils, but they alleged that he had been 
 gifted with that power by Beelzebub, the prince of the 
 devils. This, with modern Protestant apologists, is regarded as 
 the least of all the proofs of supernatural power manifested 
 by Jesus. And it would have been regarded in a similar 
 light by the Jews, for many among them were supposed to 
 have been gifted with a similar power. ^ It will hardly be 
 suggested that these opponents of Jesus admitted that he was 
 able to raise the dead, to cleanse the leper, to give sight to 
 the blind, and to restore strength to the paralytic ; or that 
 they would have allowed him to claim this ability without 
 challenging his pretensions. Nor can it be pretended that 
 they were awed by these exhibitions of a higher nature, and, 
 therefore, dared not dispute their divine origin ; for this feeling 
 would have equally extended to all the miracles performed by 
 Jesus. The natural course for them to have adopted, if it was 
 understood that Jesus claimed or was believed to possess the 
 power of working these greater wonders, would have been 
 to have referred them to diabolical aid. That they are re- 
 presented as being silent on the subject, therefore, can scarcely 
 be regarded in any other light than as a tacit admission that 
 there was nothing really understood to have been done by 
 Jesus, excepting the casting out devils, which his opponents 
 considered to display any supernatural powers. 
 
 Still, it may be said : ' The Apostles believed in Jesus as the 
 
 1 Matt, xii., 27, and the instance of Elcazar mentioned by Josephus. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 181 
 
 Messiah, and they had witnessed all lihese miracles ; their be- 
 lief, consequently, must have been founded upon what they 
 had seen, and it would be presumptuous to pronounce such a 
 belief a delusion.' There might be some force in this argu- 
 ment if we could conclude that the belief of the Apostles 
 must have been founded upon material miracles ; — that the 
 truth, wisdom, love, and holiness of Jesus were powerless by 
 themselves, even with those who daily witnessed their display, 
 and needed to be supplemented by the outward manifestation 
 of signs and wonders. But are we entitled so to think of the 
 Apostles ? It would seem not ; excepting upon the hypothesis 
 that the exhibition of supernatural power was regarded by the 
 Jews as an absolute test of Messiahship, so that no one could 
 be believed in as the Messiah excepting upon the ground of 
 his having performed miracles. Undoubtedly, if this had been 
 the case, it would be competent for any one to argue that the 
 belief in a particular person as the Messiah must have been 
 preceded by such manifestations, though it would still be an 
 open question what particular wonders would satisfy that con- 
 dition, and whether it would need, for its fulfilment, a miracle 
 in our strict modern sense. But, in fact, there is no pretence 
 for such a hypothesis. Not to mention the various persons 
 who were regarded by the Jews, or, at any rate, by numbers 
 among them, to be the Messiah, but whom no one in the 
 present day would suppose to have wrought actual miracles, 
 the instance of John the Baptist is conclusive ; for it is ob- 
 vious that those who were convinced by his preaching, were 
 prepared to have accepted him as the Messiah upon that 
 ground alone, without requiring any miraculous attestation. 
 And with regard to Jesus, whatever might be the actual 
 grounds upon which the faith of those who believed in him 
 rested, it seems certain that he refused to authenticate his 
 mission by any sign, and rebuked those who would not believe 
 without seeing one.^ 
 
 1 Matt, xii., 33 ; xvi., 1-4. 
 
182 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 It may, indeed, be said that there are other passages in 
 whicli Jesus is represented as asserting his power to work 
 miracles, and claiming acceptance on that account ; and this 
 is true. But, whatever may be the explanation of this seem- 
 ing inconsistency, it remains a fact that he condemned those 
 who made their recognition of his claim conditional upon the 
 display of miraculous power ; and that, consequently, if truly 
 reported in this respect, he did not consider, or allow his 
 disciples to consider, that the performance of miracles was a 
 necessary part of the Messianic character. And it must be 
 remembered that there could have been no motive for untruly 
 attributing these words to Jesus, or for exaggerating them. 
 And if, in truth, there had been one act performed by him in 
 the presence of friends and foes — the Scribes and Pharisees as 
 well as his own disciples, — to which he could have referred, 
 as being such a sign as his gainsayers demanded, it is difficult 
 to understand his reported silence upon the subject ; or that 
 he should have referred to the sign of the prophet Jonah — the 
 presence of the preacher calling to repentance — instead of 
 boldly resting his claim upon that proof of supernatural power 
 which they had witnessed. But, then, if Jesus expected the 
 indifferent or the hostile to believe without a sign, and re- 
 proved them for their increduKty in not so believing, he might 
 assuredly anticipate an equal measure of faith from those who 
 were his friends and followers, and who were accustomed to 
 listen with affection and reverence to all the gracious words 
 that proceeded out of his mouth. The fact, consequently, that 
 these men did believe in him furnishes no proof that they had 
 been induced to believe by the miracles they had witnessed. 
 
 There does not appear, therefore, any ground for assuming 
 that the faith in Jesus, whether as a teacher sent from God 
 or as the Messiah, could only have been the result of the 
 actual display by him of powers which a more instructed age 
 would regard as supernatural, or even which the Apostles or 
 the multitude did so regard. It is possible and even probable 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY, 183 
 
 that many of his acts were looked upon as miraculous ; 
 but it does not follow that belief in him was conditional 
 upon this opinion, or that those acts would be viewed in the 
 same light by ourselves. The most probable conclusion 
 appears to be that Jesus possessed exceptional, but not abso- 
 lutely unparalleled, powers of healing, the results of which 
 were regarded as supernatural, and that all the other marvels 
 related to have been performed by him are due to later ex- 
 aggerations. 
 
 In his twofold character as a preacher of the good news of 
 the Kingdom, and as a healer of diseases, Jesus became for a 
 time the object of popular enthusiasm. Multitudes gathered 
 round him to listen to his discourses and to witness his cures, 
 and, wherever his footsteps were turned, he was followed by 
 admiring crowds, and met with a favourable reception. 
 
 To whatever causes this early popularity might have been 
 owing, all indications appear to show that it was comparatively 
 short-lived ; though, in the total absence of any reliable marks 
 of time in the earlier Grospels it is impossible to determine 
 how long it really continued. From what we know, or may 
 surmise, of the state of feeling in Galilee, we should be dis- 
 posed to conjecture that any one preaching the near approach 
 of the Kingdom would receive attention. And we may believe 
 that, in the case of Jesus, the nature of his teaching, and his 
 own personal qualities, combined with this predisposition to 
 attract great interest to himself. But it would not be pro- 
 bable that any qualities, however eminent, or any teaching 
 however elevated, could sustain the interest that had been 
 awakened when, in fact, the promised advent was indefinitely 
 delayed. How many months or weeks might elapse in the 
 interval between the first flush of excitement and the inevit- 
 able reaction, between the joyful enthusiasm of the early days, 
 and the sickness of hope deferred that succeeded, it is impos- 
 sible to estimate ; probably, the period was but brief. The 
 times were not favourable for the lengthened maintenance of 
 
184 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 an altitude of patient waiting. The transference of Jiidsea 
 from the dominion of Archelaus to the more immediate rule 
 of Rome had exasperated the feelings of national discontent, 
 and had rendered both Judoea and Galilee still more ready to 
 welcome any one who promised a termination to the existing 
 state of things, but, at the same time, still more impatient at 
 any delay in the fulfilment of the promise. The prolonged 
 idyllic period of joyful hope, in which the youthful prophet, 
 followed by a band of admiring followers, traversed the yet 
 undesolated land, awakening everywhere the peaceful enthu- 
 siasm of the people, and almost realizing the enjoyments of 
 the Kingdom whose coming he heralded, that has been de- 
 picted with so felicitous a pencil by M. Renan, is hardly com- 
 patible with the actual realities of the age and country. The 
 sanguinary rule of the great Herod had been succeeded by a 
 period of disorder and tumult — of insurrection on the part of 
 the people, and of merciless repression on the part of their 
 rulers, — which continued, with occasional intermission, until 
 the final outbreak that ended in the siege and destruction of 
 Jerusalem. In all these movements Galilee sympathized, and 
 in many it shared. There was no period during which the 
 people were sufficiently free from the excitement of remem- 
 bered, or actual, or anticipated conflict, to have been capable 
 of jdelding themselves to the charm of such an existence as 
 M. Renan has imagined. They were ready to listen to any one 
 who announced that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, for 
 that implied deliverance from the hated yoke of the Gentile. 
 And they would be ready also to listen to his exhortations 
 to amendment of life, and to the new, and loftier, and more 
 spiritual interpretation he might give to the lessons of their 
 law. But this was only on the condition that the realization 
 of his predictions should speedily follow their proclamation. 
 And when this condition was not fulfilled, they would, for the 
 most part, fall away from him as rapidly as they had been, in 
 the first instance, attracted. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 185 
 
 It is not easy to realize the position that Jesus occupied at 
 this time ; perhaps it is impossible to do so fully. Our sources 
 of information are scanty and imperfect at the best, and those 
 that are the most reliable, are not only themselves tinged by 
 the imagination of the author, but they have been so overlaid 
 by the accumulated associations of centuries, that it is scarcely 
 possible to penetrate through these and to look at the scenes 
 they depict from the contemporary point of view. It is not 
 the simple artisan, moved by some inward impulse to assume 
 the office of preacher of the Kingdom, journeying on foot 
 from city to city, accompanied by a few disciples of humble 
 birth and narrow means,^ accepting frankly the ready hospi- 
 tality of his admirers, violating the received rules for keeping 
 the Sabbath, indifferent to ceremonial cleanliness, purposely 
 shocking the prejudices of the multitude by his disregard of 
 established practices, and, apparently, not over select in the 
 choice of his associates, that rises to our mind when we 
 think of the human life of Jesus. All of these features are, 
 no doubt, plainly depicted, or suggested, in the earlier Gospels, 
 and each of them, separately, may be occasionally dwelt upon. 
 But they are never united into a whole. Sometimes two or 
 more may be combined, but, in that event, their real aspect is 
 softened or excluded, and they are associated with other loftier 
 characteristics which, even if truly belonging to Jesus, must 
 have been unknown to his contemporaries, and could not, there- 
 fore, have affected his position among them. Most frequently, 
 however, the picture that we form is purely imaginary, and 
 
 1 In the Acts of the Apostles iv., 13, two of the most prominent among them, 
 Peter and John, are spoken of as imlearned and ignorant men ; but, perhaps, we are 
 not entitled to draw any inference from this, as the object of the wiiter may only be 
 to place in stronger relief thcii" courageous behaviour in presence of the Sanhedrim. 
 It is obvious, however, that he did not suspect the literary powers that, on the common 
 theory, were possessed by both, and in an eminent degree by John ; though the 
 Apocalypse must have been wi-itten at the time. The tradition, however, which 
 attributes the composition of the "Logia" to Matthew, suggests that the Apostles 
 were really "unlearned and ignorant." His selection for the pm-pose can best be 
 accounted for on the supposition that he could write and the others could not. 
 
186 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 abstracted from all the historical details. We call up an ideal 
 embodiment of the qualities of humility, benevolence, wisdom, 
 and virtue, without allowing it to be marred by the presence 
 of the inevitable accompaniments of poverty, or sullied by the 
 actual contact of vice. And, under some aspects, this is natural 
 and allowable ; but only so long as we do not forget that 
 those who knew Jesus in the flesh would see, primarily, those 
 very portions of the picture that we keep out of sight, and 
 could only very imperfectly, if at all, look through them to 
 those higher qualities upon which we dwell. 
 
 At the same time it would be a mistake to suppose that the 
 impression produced by the circumstances we have described, 
 especially by the poverty of Jesus and his companions, would be 
 necessarily similar to what we, English Protestants, should our- 
 selves receive from them. His own humble condition, and that 
 of his disciples, would of itself form no obstacle to his being 
 recognized by the multitude, and, possibly, even by the more 
 educated classes, as a teacher sent from Grod — commissioned to 
 announce the approach of the Kingdom, and the terms of 
 admission to its privileges. It had been no unprecedented 
 occurrence in the history of Israel that Divine messengers were 
 taken from the ranks of the people. In the actual state of the 
 nation, indeed, it was from the same ranks that any new impulse 
 must be expected to proceed, since the majority of the wealthier 
 classes deprecated any movement that might provoke a collision 
 with the Roman authority. And the influence of the Mendicant 
 orders in Europe during the Middle Ages, an influence never 
 wholly extinct, and now, apparently, about to revive in unex- 
 pected quarters, may teach us that the voluntary abnegation of 
 a fixed position, in order to subsist upon the freewill ofierings of 
 disciples, might even raise Jesus in the popular estimation. 
 
 If, however, we combine the various scattered notices of 
 character and conduct, so far as they appear trustworthy, we 
 may, perhaps, form a representation of the position of Jesus in 
 this portion of his life as near to the reality as our imperfect 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 187 
 
 materials and altered stand-point allow. It will not be the 
 utterer of dark sayings of the fourth Gospel, nor the commu- 
 nistic preacher of the third.^ It will be that of the Prophet of 
 Galilee who traverses the country, visiting all their cities and 
 villages ; teaching not only in their synogogues, but on the hill- 
 side, on the road, and in the market-place ; entering into the 
 house of whomsoever is worthy, and remaining there ; eating 
 and drinking, healing diseases, rebuking sin, and insisting on 
 the necessity of repentance and reformation, but excluding none 
 from his society on the ground of previous ill conduct, or of 
 social position ; magnifying the law, by enforcing its claims to 
 obedience, and proclaiming its permanence, but bringing out its 
 true significance, and showing that the obedience required is 
 that of the heart ; everywhere, and upon all occasions, seeking 
 to loosen the chains of ceremonialism, not only by argument, but 
 by example ; and doing all this in the name of the immediate 
 establishment of that visible kingdom of Jehovah, for which 
 almost all Jews in Palestine, — all, perhaps, excepting the Sad- 
 ducees, — were waiting. 
 
 Before the termination of the first period of popularity two 
 incidents are related that require a particular notice ; the calling 
 of Matthew, and the sending forth of the twelve apostles. The 
 former is noticeable because it illustrates the relations of Jesus 
 to a despised class, and is typical of much that was peculiar in 
 his teaching. The Publicans were the agents through whom 
 the Romans collected the public revenue in Judaea and Galilee. 
 They not merely shared the unpopularity that almost every- 
 where attached to such persons, but were especially odious be- 
 cause their occupation appeared to partake of the nature of 
 sacrilege, interfering with the claim of Jehovah to be the sole 
 ruler of his people. They were for the most part Jews by birth ; 
 but this probably added to the contempt and hostility with which 
 they were regarded, by causing them to be considered not 
 
 1 In the next chapter an examination will be attempted of the respective claims of 
 the first and thii-d Gospels, and reasons assigned for the preference given to the first. 
 
188 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 merely sacrilegious, but as renegades. And there can be little 
 doubt that their consciousness of the feelings thus excited 
 must have reacted upon their own character ; and that they 
 habitually abused their authority to exact more than was due; 
 thus indemnifying themselves for the contempt of which they 
 were the objects, by accumulating wealth at the expense of 
 their despisers. Their position, as has been pointed out by a 
 recent writer,^ was analogous to that of a tithe proctor in 
 Ireland. They formed an excluded and degraded class, asso- 
 ciated in popular phraseology, and in popular sentiment, with 
 sinners ; but possessing a certain position by reason of their 
 power and wealth. 
 
 The selection of one of this despised profession as an imme- 
 diate personal disciple, and the acceptance of his hospitality, 
 could not but shock the feelings of all the more rigidly orthodox 
 among the Jews, and, not improbably, did, ultimately, somewhat 
 shake the confidence of the multitude. Two things, however, 
 are to be noticed with regard to the transaction. In the first 
 place, it is implied that Matthew at once abandoned his office 
 and followed Jesus ; and in the second place, Jesus justifies his 
 eating with men of this class, on the ground that their very de- 
 gradation constituted an especial claim upon the services of one 
 who came " not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." 
 So far, then, as this incident is concerned, it would only prove 
 that Jesus did not consider any past conduct to be a ground for 
 excluding from the number of his personal followers a man 
 otherwise qualified for the work, who was willing to repent and 
 reform ; and that he desired to shew practically that the privi- 
 leges of the kingdom were accessible to all, even the most 
 degraded, if they were prepared to comply with the conditions 
 of admission. It may also mark a stage in his career, that 
 when, feeling the difficulty of producing any impression upon 
 the more respectable classes, whose reverence for tradition, and 
 desire to maintain their own standing with the public, pre- 
 
 1 The Rev. Mr. Plumptre. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 189 
 
 vented them from following a teacher so unconventional as he 
 had shewn himself to be, he turned to those who had no 
 position to lose, and no prejudices to he shocked. Something 
 of this kind would appear to be indicated by the phraseology in 
 which he justifies his conduct, and his disclaimer of all mission 
 to the " righteous." The full import of this event we shall 
 attempt to estimate, in connection with the character of the 
 teaching of Jesus. 
 
 The sending forth of the twelve Apostles was prompted, 
 apparently, by compassion for those who, owing to the neces- 
 sarily limited sphere of his own preaching, would not have an 
 o^Dportunity of hearing the good news of the Kingdom before 
 its arrival, and thus would lose the opportunity of qualifying 
 themselves, by repentance, to enter it. The preaching of Jesus 
 had been confined to Galilee, but the success that had, up to the 
 period of that mission, attended it, was a hopeful augury of the 
 immediate realization of his prediction. It was, therefore, needful 
 that some steps should be taken to communicate the intelligence 
 to the inhabitants of Judaea, and to call upon them also to repent. 
 This is clearly indicated by the introductory verses^ in which 
 he is described as moved with compassion for the multitudes, 
 and as comparing the people of Israel to a field ripe for the 
 harvest, but liable to be left ungathered because of the lack of 
 labourers. It is to supply this deficiency that he sends forth 
 the Apostles, and the assumed urgency of the occasion is 
 indicated by the phrase, "ye shall not have gone over the 
 cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." It would seem 
 that their object was merely to announce what had been 
 preached by Jesus himself, and before him by John, " Repent, 
 for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand;" and that they were 
 supposed to have been accredited by a power of healing, and of 
 casting out devils. Their mission was confined to the Children 
 of the Kingdom. They were neither to pass through Samaria, 
 nor to enter into any cities of the Gentiles. And they were to 
 
 1 Matt, ix., 36, et seq. 
 
190 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 depend for their support upon the unforced hospitality of those 
 to whom they addressed themselves. 
 
 So far as we can gather, this measure was not productive 
 of any appreciable result. In the first Gospel the sending 
 forth is related, and the instructions supposed to have been 
 given are detailed in full ; but there is no after reference to the 
 subject. And in the second and third Gospels, though the twelve 
 are reported to have exercised the power of healing and that of 
 casting out devils conferred upon them, and are said to have after- 
 wards returned and reported to Jesus their success in these re- 
 spects, there is nothing to suggest that their preaching, or the 
 wonders they performed, produced any permanent impression. 
 Whatever its object, the mission apparently failed. It brought 
 no new disciples to the side of Jesus, for the apostles returned 
 alone. And there is nothing to indicate that any favourable 
 impression towards himself or his doctrine was produced in any 
 of the places which they had visited. On the contrary, when 
 the report of his preaching had reached the ears of Herod, and 
 called forth expressions that appeared to render a further resi- 
 dence in Galilee unsafe, it is not to any of the places in which 
 he had commanded the apostles to preach that his own footsteps 
 were directed, but to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, which he had 
 forbidden them to visit. 
 
 Although, perhaps, we have no grounds for assuming that the 
 mission itself is an after invention, for to that assumption the 
 very aimlessness and inutility of the whole proceeding is ap- 
 parently opposed, it is difficidt to resist the conclusion that the 
 account of the instructions of Jesus, given in the first Gospel, 
 has been coloured by the after experience of his disciples.^ 
 
 1 There is a noticeable coincidence between the language here ascribed to Jesus, 
 limiting the missionary labours of the apostles to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, 
 and the position assumed by Peter, James, and John, during Paul's second visit to 
 Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 9), according to which they appear to consider themselves as only 
 entitled to preach the Gospel to Jews. Only, too, in the list of their names here given 
 is the term " apostle" applied to the twelve in the first Gospel, and it is so applied as 
 to exclude the claims of others. And the instructions to depend entirely upon freewill 
 offerings bear upon a matter which we see, from Paul's Epistle, was often urged against 
 him — Ms providing for his sustenance by his own. labour. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 191 
 
 These instructions are supposed to have been given in view of a 
 missionary journey to be undertaken in the earlier period of bis 
 public ministry, before any active opposition had been excited — 
 a journey that was to occupy but a short period, and from which 
 they were at once to return to him. The silence of the first 
 Gospel, and the accounts of the return of the apostles in the 
 second and third, shew that there was no tradition that they 
 had endured any persecution on the occasion, or even encoun- 
 tered any opposition. On the contrary, the language in which 
 they are described as relating the results of their mission, rather 
 implies its peaceable and successful prosecution, and that they 
 were themselves satisfied with their treatment. To such a 
 mission the warnings and exhortations of the first Gospel are 
 altogether inappropriate, and such as it is impossible to suppose 
 Jesus to have uttered on this occasion. To assume, with 
 some orthodox commentators, that these instructions had not an 
 immediate, but an ulterior object — that they referred not to the 
 journey which the apostles were then about to undertake, but to 
 their after labours in Gentile lands (which they are expressly for- 
 bidden to enter), or that the words, " Ye shall not have gone 
 over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come," refer 
 not to their immediate mission, but to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem before the conversion of the Jews was accomplished, — is 
 only one of those desperate expedients that are sometimes em- 
 ployed to save the credit of the Evangelical narratives for 
 absolute accuracy. And even if admitted, it does this at the 
 expense of the intelligence or truthfulness of Jesus. It makes 
 him not a preacher of righteousness, but a mere utterer of dark 
 sayings, alike irrelevant and misleading. 
 
 These orthodox interpretations may, however, be accepted as 
 a proof of the improbability that the words were spoken by 
 Jesus on the occasion, and they furnish strong reasons for 
 supposing that we have not here a distorted reminiscence of 
 the instructions actually given, but something subsequently 
 invented. It is most probable, indeed, that the whole passage 
 
192 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 is an interpolcation. We can hardly imagine that the original 
 author or compiler would have written such an introduction to 
 so uneventful a journey. If he had found these predictions 
 among the sayings commonly attributed to Jesus in the circle 
 whose traditions he collected, it would have been more natural 
 for him to have connected them with the prophecies relating to 
 the second coming, with which in purport and sentiment they 
 are nearly allied, or with some directions for preaching the 
 Gospel among the nations after the death of Jesus, than with 
 a mere passing interlude in his early teaching in Galilee. It 
 is, no doubt, possible that, on one or more occasions, Jesus may 
 have given expression to forebodings like these, and that a re- 
 miniscence of them may have been preserved. But it could 
 scarcely have been in this form, or on this occasion, that they 
 were uttered ; or that the original writer could have inserted 
 them in this connection. 
 
 It will, perhaps, always remain an open question, at what 
 period of his public life Jesus began to regard himself as the 
 Messiah, but it seems quite certain that he was not understood 
 to claim that character at first. He is not represented in any of 
 the first three Gospels as, at this time, asserting his own claims. 
 And the circumstance that, in the first Gospel, his preaching 
 is described in the very same words as those which had been pre- 
 viously used in reference to John the Baptist, shews conclusively 
 that the writer did not intend to assign to him any other 
 character than that of the herald of the Kingdom. In fact, 
 his selection of Galilee as the scene of his labours, is a proof 
 that such was his own view of his office — since the Messiah 
 was to appear in Jerusalem. It is true that he, apparently, 
 lays down the principles of morals authoritatively, and even 
 assumes to substitute the maxims which he promulgates, in the 
 place of those that were popularly supposed to have been re- 
 vealed by Jehovah to Moses. ^ And it may be suggested that 
 
 ^ In arguing from the testimony of Jesus to the authority of the Pentateuch, it should 
 not he forgotten that in many places where the Pentateuch says, " And Jehovali said to 
 Moses," Jesus says, " Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time." 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 193 
 
 this was inconsistent with the subordinate position that we sup- 
 pose him to have assumed. But we may see from the com- 
 mands which the Baptist is reported, in the third Gospel, to have 
 issued to those who sought his instructions, that this was con- 
 sidered a function of the precursor, and, therefore, that the 
 authority assumed by Jesus did not necessarily imply any claim 
 to a higher character. The same had, in fact, been done by 
 the prophets, who also taught as those "having authority." 
 And though they spoke in the name of Jehovah, whom they 
 claimed to represent, and John and Jesus spoke in their own 
 names ; yet this difference is accounted for by the change that 
 had occurred in the religious opinions of the Jews. 
 
 Something, however, in the person, or works, or doctrine of 
 Jesus appears to have led some among his hearers to surmise 
 in his case, as others are described as having previously done 
 in that of John the Baptist, that he might himself prove to 
 be the Messiah ; and it would appear that, without making any 
 direct claim to that character, Jesus was disposed to encourage 
 these views. It is at this point in the history that the Baptist, 
 for a moment, reappears upon the scene. He is in prison ; but 
 his disciples are not debarred from access to his person ; and 
 from them he receives information of what is taking place 
 outside. It would seem that they had brought to him a report 
 that Jesus, his former disciple, was preaching in Galilee the 
 good news of the Kingdom with an authority and success greater 
 than his own, and that the preaching was accompanied by won- 
 derful works such as he had never claimed to perform. This 
 report appears to have led John to conjecture that Jesus might 
 be the very Messiah, whose coming he had predicted ; but the 
 means which he employed, in order to satisfy himself, imply 
 that no public claim to that character had been made by Jesus. 
 Had such been the case, the message of John would have been 
 different ; for the very form of his enquiry shews that he was 
 prepared to accept the declaration of Jesus himself as to his own 
 character. Nothing, therefore, had been said by Jesus that was 
 
 13 
 
194 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 understood by the multitude as making sucli a claim, or, at any 
 rate, no such claim had been reported to John. And the answer of 
 Jesus, though it may be understood as expressing his own con- 
 viction that the works which he had performed ought to be in 
 themselves a proof to all that he was in reality the Messiah whose 
 coming John had announced, does not in terms assert it. In 
 this particular, as in so many others, it is impossible to 
 draw any confident conclusion, on account of our uncertainty 
 with regard to the precise language both of the message of 
 John, and of the reply of Jesus. All, perhaps, that we can 
 venture to affirm, is, that the incident of the message from John 
 is probable in itself, and is not likely to have been invented ; 
 that the writer of the first Gospel did not himself believe or in- 
 tend to represent Jesus to have this time publicly claimed the 
 higher character ; and that we have no grounds for supposing 
 that any dogmatical prepossession could have led him to sup- 
 press the record of such a claim if, in fact, it had been then 
 made. 
 
 An argument has frequently been drawn from this message of 
 John against the historical truth of the statement that he had 
 witnessed the heavenly manifestation at the baptism of Jesus, 
 and, in particular, of the statement in the fourth Gospel, that 
 he had pointed out Jesus to his disciples as the Lamb of God ; 
 as though the doubt which the message implies were inconsistent 
 with the confidence he ought in that case to have felt. But the 
 argument thus stated appears not to make sufficient allowance 
 for the necessary flux and reflux of feeling to which even the 
 highest intellects and firmest wills are liable — to the depressing 
 influence of a prison — and to the circumstance that Jesus is re- 
 presented as only preaching the good news of the Kingdom, 
 instead of, as John in that case might have expected, inaugurat- 
 ing its advent. It seems clear that the strongest belief might 
 for a moment break down under these circumstances, without, on 
 that account, entitling us to doubt its existence, or that it had 
 been originally founded upon what Avas felt to be demonstrative 
 
THE JESTJS OF HISTORY. 195 
 
 grounds. But the diflSculty suggested by the narrative in the 
 first Grospel is of a difierent character. That narrative implies 
 clearly that it was the report of wonderful works performed that 
 first directed the attention of John to Jesus, and led him to sur- 
 mise that he might be the Messiah, and that but for this report 
 he would not have thought of him in that character. The 
 person who wrote the words, " Now, when John had heard in 
 his prison the works of Christ, he sent unto him two of his dis- 
 ciples," &c., obviously intended to convey the impression that the 
 inquiry was prompted by the report which John had thus heard, 
 and not by any previous knowledge or expectation. The report 
 that Jesus was performing works so wonderful that John in his 
 prison should be told of them, would rather tend to confirm a 
 previous belief, than to excite doubts as to its propriety. That this 
 intelligence should have, in fact, prompted the enquiry, indicates, 
 consequently, that it suggested an opinion as to the character of 
 Jesus which required confirmation from himself; not that it 
 rendered uncertain a previously existing belief, which, on the 
 contrary, it would rather have strengthened. 
 
 The inference, then, that we draw from the history up to this 
 point, though we are fully aware that there are particular expres- 
 sions in the Gospels that may be urged in support of a difierent 
 conclusion is, that Jesus during the whole of this period refrained 
 from proclaiming himself to be the Messiah ; but that it is pos- 
 sible he was gradually inclining to the opinion that he might be 
 such. Probably he was waiting until his own half-formed con- 
 viction was ratified by some outward recognition. Even from 
 the supernatural point of view there is nothing improbable in 
 the idea that he should have intentionally allowed his claims 
 to force themselves gradually, but surely, upon the slow appre- 
 hension of his disciples, rather than have prematurely assumed 
 a character which they were not yet prepared to recognize. 
 And, from the historical stand- point, it is both natural and 
 consistent that the nascent belief in his own character and 
 destiny, which circumstances appear to have fostered, should 
 
196 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 have needed confirmation by some expression of belief from 
 others, and that it could not be otherwise than weak until 
 reciprocated. 
 
 It was, apparently, shortly after the return of the Apostles to 
 Jesus that the messengers from John visited him. Their visit 
 appears to have coincided with a period of depression in his own 
 mind, probably resulting from the proof furnished by this un- 
 eventful return of the fallaciousness of his expectations as to the 
 period of the manifestation of the Kingdom. In fact, it could 
 scarcely have been otherwise, if he had led the Apostles to 
 believe, what, in that case, he must have believed himself, — that 
 the Son of Man should be manifested in the clouds of heaven, 
 even before they could have completed their journey. And it is 
 possible that the coming of these messengers impressed upon 
 him more forcibly the trifling results of his own labours in the 
 very field which he had himself selected. The mere report of his 
 works had prepared John to believe in him, while those who 
 had witnessed their performance were incredulous and unre- 
 pentant. Nay, more, those who had refused to believe in John 
 because of his ascetic practices, rejected him, because he did 
 not refuse to share in the innocent festivities of the people. We 
 should conclude from the account that the messengers of John 
 had come openly, so that their visit and its purport were known 
 to the multitude, and that Jesus had treated the message as a 
 testimony to himself. In referring to it he exalts the character 
 of John in comparison with those who had preceded him ; though 
 preserving his inferiority in comj)arison with those who should 
 actually enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And, recognizing 
 the futility of his own efforts in the districts where he had till 
 then laboured, he solemnly denounces the principal places by 
 name, and predicts that even the cities of the plain, overwhelmed 
 with fire from heaven for their enormities, and Tyre and Sidon 
 desolated by the woes predicted by the Hebrew prophets, would 
 suffer less in the day of retribution than they ; not, indeed, be- 
 cause the offences of those had been less heinous, but because 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 197 
 
 they had not been favoured with the same motives and oppor- 
 tunities for repentance. 
 
 From this time it would appear that the opposition to Jesus, of 
 which there are many previous indications, gathered consistency 
 and strength. He is assailed because his disciples, with his 
 sanction, violate the traditional rides for the observance of the 
 Sabbath, and because he selects that day for the performance of 
 a cure in pubKc — in the Synagogue. He is accused of perform- 
 ing his work of casting out devils by the aid of the Prince of the 
 Devils, and he is required to shew some sign in attestation of his 
 mission. And there is no indication upon any of these occasions 
 of his receiving any help or encouragement from the people. 
 On the contrary, it would appear that his retreat to Nazareth 
 was prompted by the entire absence of popular support. In 
 Nazareth, however, he is received with open incredulity, and, 
 finally, hearing of some threatening expressions on the part of 
 Herod, he departs into a desert place. Even here, however, 
 he is represented as being followed by the emissaries of the 
 Pharisees — dej)uted on this occasion from Jerusalem — and, after 
 an altercation with them, he proceeds to the coasts of Tyre and 
 Sidon ; hopeless, apparently, of seeiug any fulfilment of his 
 prediction in the district of Galilee. And, upon a careful exami- 
 nation of the first Gospel, it would seem that he did not attempt 
 to resume his work in that land. The incidents related as 
 having taken place after his departure for Phenicia, and before 
 the memorable scene at Csesarea Philippi, seem to be merely 
 duplicates of events already related. And it is not easy to sug- 
 gest a motive for the visit to Caesarea Philippi after Jesus had 
 once returned to Galilee ; while it would be natural that he 
 should visit that town on his way to Jerusalem, or before under- 
 taking that journey. The consideration of this question, how- 
 ever, belongs more properly to the next stage in his career. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE FIRST GOSPEL AND THE THIRD. 
 
 Before attempting to estimate the nature of tlie teaching of 
 Jesus, it is essential to determine the authority we are to follow. 
 This is, in some degree, important, even with regard to the 
 course of events, but it is absolutely necessary mth regard to 
 the character of his doctrine. To take one instance, by way 
 of illustration — Did Jesus say, " Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
 for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven ; Blessed are they that 
 hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be iilled," 
 as in the first Gospel; or did he say, "Blessed are ye poor," 
 and "Blessed are ye that hunger now," and accompany these 
 blessings with the corresponding denunciations — *' Woe unto 
 you that are rich, for you have received your consolation ; Woe 
 unto you that are full, for you shall hunger," as in the third ? 
 This may be taken as a typical instance, because the difierence 
 in the two expressions finds its counterpart in other portions 
 of the teaching. The parable of Lazarus, so strangely misin- 
 terpreted by orthodox commentators, is merely an expansion 
 of the blessings and woes pronounced by Jesus in the third 
 Gospel : — "Son, thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, 
 and, likewise, Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted and 
 thou art tormented." And there are other and yet more funda- 
 mental differences between the spirit of the teaching of Jesus, 
 as deduced from the third Gospel, and that which may be 
 drawn from the first. It is obvious, therefore, that unless we 
 are prepared, upon stated grounds, to assign a preponderating 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 199 
 
 authority to one or the other, it is impossible to decide, with 
 confidence, what was the doctrine really taught by Jesus ; 
 unless, indeed, we suppose that his doctrines varied with the 
 occasion, and that to one set of hearers he announced one 
 lesson, and to another the contrary. 
 
 Upon such a hypothesis, the proper conclusion would appear 
 to be that, in addition to the Sermon on the Mount, reported 
 by the first evangelist, there was also a sermon on the plain, 
 as reported by the third; going partially over the same ground, 
 but, in some respects, considerably modifying the first teaching; 
 turning that which, on its original delivery, was an encourage- 
 ment to the poor in spirit — the mourners, the meek, the lovers 
 of justice and of mercy, of purity and of peace — into a com- 
 munistic eulogium on poverty and denunciation of riches, apart 
 from the spiritual condition of the poor or the rich, the temper 
 in which the one might endure their poverty, or the use to 
 which the others might devote their wealth. And, no doubt, 
 this latter was the light in which the author of the third 
 Grospel imderstood and intended to represent the teaching of 
 Jesus, — just as in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles 
 he describes the infant Church at Jerusalem as embodying 
 these principles in action, and as essentially communistic in 
 organization and spirit. 
 
 It is not in this respect alone that there is a difierence 
 between the two Grospels. In the first Jesus is represented 
 as forbidding the Apostles to enter into the cities of the 
 Samaritans, and nowhere is there any indication, in act or in 
 word, that he drew any distinction between them and the 
 Gentiles ; that he visited their cities or regarded them with 
 any other feelings than those entertained by the Jews in 
 general. In the third Gospel, however, the prohibition to 
 enter the cities of the Samaritans is omitted, and Jesus is re- 
 presented as passing through their country on his way to 
 Jerusalem, and resting in one of their villages. And, beside 
 this, on two occasions, once in act, and once in parable, a 
 
200 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Samaritan is presented as a type of gratitude and of benevo- 
 lence. It is not easy to accept both, of these representations 
 as true. If the third evangelist had preserved the prohibition 
 to the disciples to enter into the cities of the Samaritans, many 
 reasons might be suggested to explain the subsequent journey 
 of Jesus himself through their country, though that would still 
 be inconsistent with the character he was about to assume. 
 The omission of all reference to such a command cannot be 
 otherwise than intentional, for the writer could scarcely be 
 ignorant that it was attributed to Jesus. We must, there- 
 fore, assume either that he did not believe it to have been 
 given, or that he deliberately suppressed it. In the former 
 case, he could not have regarded the first Gospel as a truthful 
 representation of the teaching of Jesus ; in the latter, he 
 furnishes grounds for distrusting his own authority. 
 
 Again, the incident of the anointing of Jesus, as related in 
 the first two Gospels, differs so materially from the similar act 
 related in the third, that we must either suppose two separate 
 occasions on which an analogous act was performed by different 
 persons, or that one of the narratives has been coloured by 
 the doctrinal views of the Evangelist who relates it. In the 
 first Gospel (with the account in which the second substantially 
 agrees) the head of Jesus is anointed ; the anointing takes 
 place only a day or two before his death, in Bethany, at the 
 house of Simon the leper ; there is no question of anything but 
 an act of homage rendered to Jesus, who defends the act as a 
 good work, and refers it, by anticipation, to his coming burial, 
 at which, under the circumstances of danger then surrounding 
 him, he might well suppose that the ordinary ceremony of 
 anointing would be wanting. In the third Gospel, on the con- 
 trary, it is the feet of Jesus that are anointed ; the anointing is 
 represented as taking place at an earlier period of his ministry, 
 at the house of a Pharisee (who, however, is named Simon), and 
 as being performed by a woman of notoriously bad character, 
 whom, nevertheless, Jesus absolves, solely on the ground of this 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 201 
 
 manifestation of personal love to himself. Nor is this a solitary- 
 instance in which the forgiveness of sins is represented in the 
 third Gospel as the consequence of a single act of sorrow without 
 amendment. The history of the penitent thief, and the parable 
 of the prodigal son, teach the same doctrine ; of which, it may 
 be almost said, there is not a trace in the first Gospel. It is 
 true that Jesus is there represented as coming to seek and to 
 save that which was lost, and as calling not the righteous but 
 sinners to repentance ; but the nature of the repentance required, 
 and the terms of the salvation offered, are indicated with suffi- 
 cient clearness by the Sermon on the Mount, with the spirit of 
 which the other sayings attributed to Jesus in that Gospel 
 agree. It is imperative, therefore, for any one who wishes to 
 ascertain what was, in fact, the teaching of the historical Jesus, 
 to determine whether the account in the first Gospel or that in 
 the third is to be accepted as authoritative. 
 
 The prevailing habit of modern theological teaching in this 
 particular is eclectic. With regard to the Sermon on the 
 Mount, the version of the first Gospel is almost universally fol- 
 lowed, so far as the blessings are concerned. In fact, it may 
 be doubted whether, during the last century, any sermon has 
 been published in England having the beatitudes in the third 
 Gospel, with their corresponding denunciations, as its subject. 
 It is true, no doubt, that the parable of the rich man and 
 Lazarus is often made the subject of sermon and commentary ; 
 but it is interpreted in a spirit diametrically opposite to that in 
 which it was composed. In fact, all modern Protestant divines 
 import into it the notion of excess and hardheartedness on the 
 part of the rich man, and of holiness on the part of Lazarus, in 
 order to justify to their modern ideas the different fate of each. 
 It is superfluous to say that the parable itself contains not a 
 hint of such a reason. The offence of the rich man is that he is 
 clothed in purple and fine linen, and fares sumptuously every day. 
 The idea of merit or demerit in either, apart from their wealth or 
 poverty, would never have been, suggested except for dogmatic 
 
202 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 considerations, and it is, in fact, expressly excluded by the reply 
 of Abraham previously quoted. Abraham professes to justify to 
 the rich man his exclusion from the heaven to which Lazarus 
 is admitted, and the reason which he assigns for that exclusion 
 must be, by every impartial interpreter, accepted as that which 
 to the author of the parable appeared just and sufficient. 
 
 In other respects the tendency has been to prefer the view 
 taken in the third Gospel ; and that of the first is practically 
 regarded as somewhat savouring of legalism. The penitent 
 thief and the returning prodigal are favourite illustrations ; 
 though even they are not received simply in their natural and 
 obvious aspect, but are qualified by conclusions drawn from the 
 teaching of Paul, and of the unknown author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. This course may be quite unobjectionable so far 
 as the object of the teacher is edification. If the New Testament, 
 as it stands, is to be taken as the source from which the spiritual 
 life of the believer is to be nourished, and from which lessons 
 are to be drawn for his practical guidance, it may be both 
 natural and proper that its various parts should be so selected 
 and combined as may best promote these objects. Such a 
 course is not, however, allowable in the present investigation. 
 Our object is simply historical ; to ascertain, if practicable, and as 
 exactly as it is practicable, what Jesus did, and what he taught. 
 We have no prepossession in favour of one or the other repre- 
 sentation of his life and doctrine. But we cannot assume that 
 two discrepant, and sometimes even contradictory, accounts are 
 both true ; nor can we conclude that they are of equal authority, 
 without admitting that our investigation is, practically, hopeless; 
 and, least of all, are we entitled to treat each as accurate, just 
 80 far as it agrees with our individual conception of what the 
 teaching of such a person as Jesus ought to have been. Our 
 duty is to enquire into the relative authority of these two 
 versions of the Gospel narrative, and to assign reasons, de- 
 duced from such enquiry, for admitting or rejecting either 
 version, in whole or in part. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 203 
 
 Upon the ordinary view, with regard to the authorship of 
 these Gospels, there can be little doubt of the conclusion at 
 which we ought to arrive. If the first Gospel was written in 
 Judaea, before the fall of Jerusalem, by Matthew, one of the 
 Apostles, a companion of Jesus in his lifetime, — and the third 
 by Luke, a late convert, who had never, so far as appears, been 
 associated with the Christian Church until the time when he 
 attached himself to the fortunes of Paul and shared his joumey- 
 ings, and who was not present at any of the scenes he describes,^ 
 — the former must surely be the more reliable. There can be no 
 comparison between the credit due to one who was himself an 
 eye and ear witness, who continued to live in the very centre 
 of Christian tradition until his work was writtten, and one 
 who, not having joined the sect until some twenty years after 
 the death of its founder, visited Jerusalem a few years later, 
 and remained there only during the brief and troubled visit 
 which ended in the imprisonment of Paul, whom he afterwards 
 accompanied to Home, where it would appear that he remained, 
 presumably, until the third Gospel was written. "Whatever 
 deductions may be made from the former, it must, unless we 
 assume wilful dishonesty on the part of the writer, be entitled 
 to greater credit than the latter. 
 
 Sometimes, however, a theory is suggested which implies 
 that the account in each of these Gospels is to be received, 
 only subject to certain deductions. It is said that the first was 
 written for the use of Jewish believers, and that the author for 
 this reason omitted from his version many things that might 
 have wounded their susceptibilities, and coloured others ; while 
 the third was written for Gentile converts, and, consequently, 
 the author made a difierent selection, and gave an opposite 
 
 1 This necessarily results from the argument by which it is attempted to prove that 
 this Gospel and the Acts were composed by Luke, or, at any rate, by a companion of 
 Paul. It is argued that the use of the word "we" in certain parts of the Acts, neces- 
 sarily implies that the author was present at the scenes there related. But, then, it 
 results, with at least equal certainty, that he was not present at any of the other scenes 
 he describes. 
 
204 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 colour to his narrative. But this suggestion fails to account 
 for the most striking discrepancies between the two accounts. 
 And, if it were admitted, it would only throw a doubt 
 upon both statements alike, since it represents the writers as 
 actuated, not by a wish to tell the complete and simple truth, 
 but by a desire to please their readers. There is but a brief step 
 from suppressing a part of the truth, to inserting that which 
 is not true ; and the writer who consciously does the one 
 lays himself open to a reasonable suspicion of having also done 
 the other. It may, indeed, be further suggested that there was, 
 in this case, no conscious suppression ; — that the writers were 
 simple men who related only what they believed to be true, 
 and who, if they omitted incidents, or altered discourses, did 
 so merely because the incidents appeared to them inconsistent 
 with the character of Jesus, and therefore untrue, and the 
 discourses to be inaccurately reported. And this is, no doubt, 
 possible in the case of any but an actual witness ; though it 
 is not easy to imagine any one gravely attributing this kind 
 of simpKcity to the author of the third Gospel. Even if ad- 
 mitted, it would only save the credit of the writers for honesty 
 of purpose, without giving any greater degree of credibility to 
 their narratives. And it would still leave them open to the 
 suspicion of having invented occurrences, or discourses, under 
 the influence of the same feelings. 
 
 It must be obvious that this, in any of its forms, is a 
 hypothesis that would be framed only for the purpose of saving 
 the credit of the later Gospel. If it be true that the first was 
 written by Matthew, for the use of the Church in Jerusalem, 
 of which the Apostles formed a part, while James, the brother 
 of Jesus, was at its head, — we have all the security which the 
 nature of the case admits of, that it truly represents the spirit of 
 the teaching of Jesus, and the outline of his history. We may 
 suspect and allow for that spirit of exaggeration so generally 
 manifested, when, during a long course of years, the memory of 
 events is trusted to individual recollection, or to popular tra- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 205 
 
 dition, and details of them are repeated from mouth to mouth ; 
 but, allowing for this, we should believe that we had the truest 
 picture of the historical Jesus that it is possible for us now to 
 possess. And, certainly, the third Grospel, written by a recent 
 convert in a distant land, and, probably, at a much later period, 
 after the death of most, if not of all, of the Apostles, could not 
 compete with it in authority. Nor, excepting for dogmatical 
 purposes, would any one claim for it such equality. It would 
 be at once conceded that it was an attempt so to modify the 
 original representation of the teaching and life of Jesus as to 
 render it adapted to the new circle into which his doctrines 
 had penetrated, and the new disciples who had been attracted 
 by them. We might admit the possibility that its author had 
 found some scattered fragments of a true tradition which had 
 not been seized by his predecessor, but we should at once con- 
 clude that, when the two were in conflict, the earlier possessed 
 superior claims to authority. 
 
 "We are not, it is true, able to assume this position. We can- 
 not conclude that the first Gospel, as we possess it, is the work 
 of Matthew. On the contrary, there is much in it which is 
 inconsistent with such a conclusion. It does, however, apj^ear 
 to be based upon a writing composed before the fall of Jeru- 
 salem, and current among the brethren in Judaea, which, to 
 a considerable extent, it truly represents ; and it is (among 
 others) with the portions that have this appearance that the 
 third Gospel conflicts. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to 
 abandon all hope of historical certainty, by placing upon the 
 same level a writing composed within about thirty years of the 
 death of Jesus, — if not by one who had himself been his com- 
 panion, yet by one who habitually associated with those who 
 were, — and a writing composed from thirty to forty years later, 
 by one who makes no claim to anything but careful and im- 
 partial research,^ and who never belonged to the circle of those 
 
 1 Our subsequent examination of the Acts of the Apostles will shew abundant 
 grounds for supposing that even this claim is unfounded, and that the work was 
 
206 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 that knew Jesus in his lifetime, we are compelled to acknow- 
 ledge the greater authority of the former. 
 
 A careful examination of the contents of the third Gospel, 
 in itself, and in comparison with the first, appears to conduct 
 to the same conclusion. It has never been argued that the 
 order of events in the former is, throughout, reliable — though 
 a very few commentators have been disposed, on the whole, to 
 give the preference, even in this respect, to the third over 
 the first. But the opening scene at Nazareth (Luke iv., 16), 
 pre-supposing as it does a previous working of miracles at 
 Capernaum, which, nevertheless, the narrative almost expressly- 
 excludes, can scarcely be regarded as historical. The conduct 
 attributed to Jesus is inconsistent and unworthy, and, in fact, 
 inexplicable upon any reasonable hypothesis. He begins by 
 reading from the Scriptures, and follows his reading by a brief 
 exhortation. The audience, apparently, listen with a pleased 
 surprise — pleased with his teaching, and surprised that such 
 powers should be displayed by the son of the carpenter. 
 There is not a hint of contempt or incredulity — scarcely even 
 of an audible expression of wonder. Jesus, as it would appear, 
 for no other reason than that, in their thoughts, they contrasted 
 his lowly birth and station with the hopes which he held 
 out, breaks out into reproaches ; assumes that they will require 
 him to perform before them the works already performed at 
 Capernaum (when there is no ground for supposing he had yet 
 performed any) ; threatens, by implication, that he will go to 
 the heathen (for this is the only meaning to be put upon the 
 examples of the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian) ; 
 and when, by these reproaches and threats, he has roused them 
 to such a pitch of anger that they menace his life, escapes from 
 their hands, apparently, by miracle, and goes to another city 
 in his own country, where he begins to perform miracles of 
 
 composed for the purpose of gi^'ing sncli an aspect to the condition of the early 
 Church as coincided with the objects of the writer, without regard to historical 
 probability, or authentic sources of information. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 207 
 
 healing, and never leaves that country to perform miracles else- 
 where. It is not easy to understand the object of the writer in 
 inserting such a description, unless it be to shadow forth, at the 
 very commencement of the life of Jesus, the rejection of the 
 Jews and the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. And 
 even this, although, no doubt, the natural inference from the 
 words of Jesus, does not appear on the surface of the history, 
 for his acts rather seem to point to a contrast between Nazareth, 
 the city in which he had been brought up, and Capernaum and 
 the other parts of Galilee where he had not before resided. 
 Whatever might be the motive, it is obvious that here, at any 
 rate, the order of events in the first Gospel is more probable 
 and better entitled to credit. 
 
 The description, too, given in the third Gospel, of the re- 
 lations of Jesus with the Pharisees, suggests a similar con- 
 clusion. In the first Gospel the Pharisees are represented 
 at first as standing aloof and indifierent ; to have paid no 
 attention to the new teacher, who, sprung from the ranks 
 of the people, was preaching the coming of the Kingdom to 
 men of his own class, and forming a small knot of disciples 
 from among them. Even the contemptuous tone in which, in 
 the Sermon on the Mount, he is rej)resented as having spoken 
 of themselves, seems at first to have been disregarded, though, 
 probably, it was not unfelt. Afterwards, as the movement 
 acquired greater importance, and could not be altogether dis- 
 regarded, the Pharisees are made to appear uijon the scene, 
 assuming an attitude of opposition which becomes more decided 
 as the work of Jesus continues. The earliest hint, in the first 
 Gospel, of any dissatisfaction with the teaching of Jesus occurs 
 in the account of the miraculous cure of the man sick of the 
 palsy, where Jesus is represented as declaring that his sins are 
 forgiven, and some Scribes, who are present, as resenting this as 
 an assumption of the special prerogative of God. This event, 
 however, is related as occurring after the delivery of the Sermon 
 on the Mount, which appears to be intended as a summary 
 
208 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 of the whole doctrine of Jesus at this time, and after a long 
 course of miracles. At a later period, the Pharisees are, for 
 the first time, referred to, as attributing the power of Jesus 
 to cast out devils to the aid of the prince of the devils ; and 
 from this time they never meet except as avowed opponents. 
 In the third Gospel the order of events is different, but there, 
 also, the relation between Jesus and the body of Pharisees is 
 described as uniformly hostile. In spite of this, Jesus is repre- 
 sented as, on three occasions, partaking of the hospitality of a 
 Pharisee, and on each occasion availing himself of the oppor- 
 tunity to attack his entertainer or the body to which he 
 belongs. It is not very probable, considering the feelings of 
 hostility existing between Jesus and the Pharisees, which appears 
 from the third Gospel to have broken out whenever they were 
 brought into contact, that either a Pharisee woxdd have in- 
 vited Jesus to his house, or that Jesus would have accepted 
 the invitation. And it is still more improbable that, if Jesus 
 had voluntarily placed himself in the position of a guest, he 
 should have so utterly disregarded the obligations which that 
 position imposed. That he should have denounced the Phari- 
 sees to the people, whom they were leading astray ; that he 
 should have confronted them in places of public resort, and 
 have there exposed their formalism and insincerity, was, from 
 his stand-point, no more than was demanded from him as a 
 preacher of righteousness ; for, in that character, it was in- 
 cumbent upon him, not merely to teach that which was good, 
 but to condemn that which was evil. But this very position 
 of open and avowed hostility would have made him careful 
 not to exhibit to the people such an example of inconsistency 
 as would have been furnished by his partaking of the hosj)i- 
 tality of the very men whom he had denounced ; and sitting as 
 a guest at the table of those who had called him a blasphemer 
 and a servant of Beelzebub. And if it should be suggested 
 that the Pharisees, whose invitations he accepted, were favour- 
 ably distinguished from the rest of the body, and were not 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 209 
 
 implicated in the general hostility, this suggestion, while miti- 
 gating one source of diflB.culty, only leaves the alleged conduct 
 of Jesus, as a guest, more inexplicable, and, it must be ac- 
 knowledged, more iudefensible. 
 
 These considerations would not, it may be admitted, justify 
 us in rejecting the contemporary narrative of an eye-witness. 
 Perhaps they would not, of themselves, authorize us to dis- 
 believe the account given in the third Gospel ; though they 
 would certainly cast considerable doubt upon its accuracy, hav- 
 ing regard to the distance of time and place from the reported 
 occurrences at which it was written. When, however, the 
 question is between the first Gospel and the third, these con- 
 siderations appear to be decisive against the latter. When, 
 for instance, we have to determine whether the anointing of 
 Jesus took place at the house of Simon, the leper, presumably 
 a well-known person in the early Christian community, as 
 stated in the first Gospel, or at the house of a Pharisee bear- 
 ing the same name, as stated in the third ; or whether the 
 denunciations of the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii., 13, et seq. ; Luke 
 xi., 37, et seq.) took place in Jerusalem in the presence of the 
 people, shortly before the arrest of Jesus, and after repeated 
 attacks by the Pharisees, or, at a very early period in his public 
 life, at the house of a Pharisee whose guest he was at the 
 time, — such improbabilities as those to which we have adverted 
 appear decisively to shew that the earlier account is to be 
 preferred. In fact, these scenes in the third Gospel could only 
 have been written at a time when all perception of the true rela- 
 tion between Jesus and the Pharisees had been lost. 
 
 We must not, indeed, pass over the possible suggestion that 
 both Gospels are right in what they have related, and only err, 
 if error it can be called, by omission. It must, then, be supposed 
 that the feet of Jesus were anointed at a feast at the house of a 
 Pharisee by a woman who was a notorious sinner ; that after- 
 wards, at the house of Simon the leper, his head was anointed 
 by another woman ; that Jesus denounced the Pharisees at the 
 
 14 
 
210 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 table of a host who was himself a Pharisee, and afterwards, at 
 Jerusalem, repeated the same denunciations publicly in the pre- 
 sence of the people. But this suggestion raises numerous 
 other difficulties that appear to be insurmountable. Take, first, 
 the instance of the anointing. It will be necessary, in the first 
 place, to account for the circumstance that the first Gospel con- 
 tains no reference to the scene described in the third, any more 
 than the third to that described in the first. And this is only 
 possible, if both scenes occurred, on the hypothesis that each 
 writer intentionally suppressed the incident which the other 
 had related ; for it cannot be supposed that either writer 
 was ignorant of both events. That the writer of the third 
 Gospel should be ignorant of the anointing at Bethany is 
 incredible, considering the notoriety of the transaction implied 
 in the words attributed to Jesus: "wheresoever this Gospel shall 
 be preached in the whole world, there shall also this that this 
 woman hath done be told for a memorial of her." And equally 
 incredible is it that an incident so striking, and one which so ma- 
 terially afiects the view to be taken of the character and doctrine 
 of Jesus, as that of anointing his feet by a woman who was a 
 sinner, and the declaration of Jesus that her sins, which were 
 many, were forgiven her, for she loved much, should have been 
 unknown to the author of the first Gospel. In this case, then, 
 how is the omission to be accounted for ? Will it be said that, 
 in the face of the words of Jesus referred to above, the author 
 of the third Gospel deliberately omitted all reference to the act 
 which he so highly commended — thus, as far as his history was 
 received as authentic, falsifying the promise ? And if this be 
 so, on what ground is it proposed to account for the omission, 
 since there are no dogmatic prepossessions that can be alleged as 
 a reason ? Or can it be maintained that the author of the first 
 Gospel omitted all notice of the anointing the feet of Jesus, though 
 presumably present on the occasion, because it contradicted the 
 representation that he desired to give of the doctrine of Jesus. 
 This, no doubt, may be said. Those who say it, however, not 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 211 
 
 merely deprive themselves of all right to ask us to trust an 
 author guilty of such a suppression, but they make an accusa- 
 tion which nothing in the tone or character of the first Gospel 
 warrants us in entertaining. And, besides, this suggestion 
 leaves unaccounted for the omission of the same incident from 
 the second Gospel, the author of which certainly had no such 
 prej)ossession as would have led him to suppress it, and who, no 
 doubt, would have related it if he had heard of its occurrence.^ 
 We can, therefore, only conclude that the first and the third 
 Evangelist really refer to the same event, and, in that case, we 
 must assume that it had either been modified by tradition before 
 it reached the latter, or, as is more probable, that he himself 
 modified it for doctrinal purposes. 
 
 With regard to the discourse against the Pharisees, we should 
 have to suppose either that Jesus, on two occasions, repeated 
 the same denunciations substantially in the same words, and 
 that each of the first and third Evangelists has omitted one of 
 these, or that he thus spoke only once, and that one or the other of 
 them has mistaken the occasion. The latter, upon all accounts, 
 is more probable ; and then everything leads to the belief that 
 the first Gospel has preserved the true tradition. That Jesus, 
 when confronted in Jerusalem with the Pharisees and the Doctors 
 of the Law — witnessing their formalism and narrowmindedness 
 — exasperated by their open attacks, and still more by their at- 
 tempts to entrap him — feeling that all hopes of friendship, or 
 even forbearance, on their part were vain, and that nothing was 
 left to him but to accept and defy their hostility, — should have 
 denounced them to the people, is consistent with his character 
 and position. But that he should have accepted an invitation 
 from one of their body, should have neglected to wash his hands 
 
 1 The suggestion of Dean Alford, in his New Testament for English Readers (Intro- 
 duction, chap, i., sect. 3, note), that Luke did not know of the anointing related by the 
 first two Evangelists, only increases the difficulty, since we must, in that case, suppose 
 that in all the places visited by him for the piu'pose of collecting the materials for his 
 history, although the Gospel was preached there, "that which this woman had done" 
 was not " also told for a memorial of her." 
 
212 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 before sitting down to the repast (a custom not only regarded as 
 ceremonially necessary, but, in that climate, essential to cleanli- 
 ness and comfort, one the observance of which would be due 
 to the known feelings of his entertainer) ; and, then, because 
 his host showed, by some look or gesture, his surprise at the 
 omission, should break out into unmeasured invectives against 
 him, and the whole body to which he belonged, is neither 
 natural nor probable — neither consistent with the spirit of the 
 teaching of Jesus, nor with the idea which we must form of his 
 character. 
 
 There is only one other point to which it seems needful to 
 refer in illustration of the reasons that induce us to give credit 
 to the first Gospel rather than to the third, in the particulars in 
 which they diifer ; and that is the framework, so to speak, in 
 which the author of the third Gospel has set the greater number 
 of detached sayings which he attributes to Jesus, — the journey 
 from Galilee to Jerusalem by way of Samaria. At the fifty-first 
 verse of the ninth chapter we learn that Jesus set his face to go to 
 Jerusalem. He then sends messengers, who enter into a village 
 of the Samaritans to prepare for him, and being refused shelter 
 there, he goes with his disciples to another village ; and in the 
 eighteenth chapter, at the thirty-fifth verse, he is represented as 
 approaching Jericho on his way to Jerusalem. All the incidents 
 and discourses, consequently, related by the third Evangelist in 
 these nine chapters are represented as taking place in the brief 
 period occupied by such a journey. In this portion are matters 
 peculiar to the third Gospel ; but the greater part consists of 
 matter common to the third with one or other of the former 
 Gospels ; which, so far as contained in the first, appear in a 
 different, and, with one or two exceptions,^ in a far more 
 
 ' One of these exceptions is the celebrated saying (Luke ix., 57, 68; Matt, viii., 
 19, 20), "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of 
 Man has not where to lay his head." Such a speech on the part of Jesus is consistent 
 with the eulogiums on poverty, as such, attributed to him in the third Gospel, but it 
 does not agree with the tenor of the first, in which there are no indications of priva- 
 tion, at any rate at this period of his public life. May we not here have one of 
 the interpolations spoken of above ? It will be seen that the verses, Matt, viii., 18, 23, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 213 
 
 suitable connection. And the more closely these chapters are 
 examined, the more clearly will it be seen that the incidents 
 related are unsuited to the time, and place, and circumstances 
 with which they are connected. It may not be altogether im- 
 possible that the events occurred, but the improbability that they 
 did is so great as to authorize us unhesitatingly to reject all 
 claim on the part of the narrative to control or vary the accounts 
 previously given. 
 
 If, however, this is the conclusion forced upon us, — if, in the 
 cases in which we are able to compare the first and the third 
 Gospels, we are driven to the conclusion that the latter is less 
 trustworthy — that the alterations which it introduces are either 
 due to the dogmatic views of the author, or are the result of a 
 distorted tradition, — what security can we have for relying on it 
 in those cases in which it introduces altogether new matter, 
 when an incident, a parable, a prophecy, or a doctrine rests upon 
 its unsupported authority ? This is a question which we cannot 
 evade, whose importance will be manifest by a brief enumera- 
 tion of those parts of the third Gospel peculiar to itself, and of 
 the more important features of the first Gospel which in it are 
 entirely omitted. And it must be remembered that, even if the 
 result of the enquiry we have pursued should be regarded by 
 any one as favourable to the authenticity of the third Gospel, 
 as contrasted with the first, such a question as we have just 
 suggested must still be raised. In that event, however, it will 
 be the authority of the first and not of the third Gospel that 
 will be involved in the answer. If the third Gospel truly repre- 
 sents the spirit of the teaching of Jesus, what degree of credit 
 can be given to the first, in which that teaching is so profoundly 
 modified ? 
 
 are naturally connected, " Jesus, seeing a great crowd of people, commanded his dis- 
 ciples to pass to the other side, and he entered the ship accompanied by his disciples." 
 And the same incident is related in the second and third Gospels (Mark iv., 35, 36 ; 
 Luke viii. 22), without any hint that such an interruption occurred as that which the 
 first Gospel now contains. The latter omission by itself would have little weight, but 
 it is not easy to imderstand why the second Evangelist shoiild have omitted this inci- 
 dent, if it had been contained in the source from which he drew. 
 
214 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 The more important portions of the third Gospel, peculiar to 
 itself, are : as to the terms of forgiveness of sin, the anointing 
 of the feet of Jesus by the woman who was a sinner, and espe- 
 cially the sentence, for the sake of which the incident seems to 
 have been inserted, "Her sins which are many are forgiven 
 her, for she loved much ;" the parable of the prodigal son, that 
 of the Pharisee and the publican, and the story of the penitent 
 thief; as to the feeling of Jesus towards the Samaritans, the 
 journey through Samaria, the parable of the good Samaritan, 
 the cure of the ten lepers, — one of whom was a Samaritan, 
 and alone returned to give thanks to his benefactor ; as to 
 poverty and wealth, the blessing on the poor and the himgry 
 as such, the woe denounced upon those who have their good 
 things in this life, the parable of the rich man whose ground 
 brought forth abundantly, the parable of the rich man and 
 Lazarus ; as to the relation of the Grospel of the Kingdom to the 
 Gentiles, the mission of the seventy disciples, corresponding to 
 the supposed number of the nations of the earth ; as to prayer, 
 the parable of the importunate neighbour and of the unjust 
 judge ; and the parable of the unjust steward, for which it is 
 difficult to suggest a purpose or a moral. And, corresponding to 
 these, are certain omissions. The third Gospel does not contain 
 the emphatic declaration by Jesus that he is not come to destroy, 
 but to fulfil the law ; nor the statement that those who break or 
 who sanction the breach of its least commandments shall be 
 least in the Kingdom of Heaven; nor that only those whose 
 righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and 
 Pharisees shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven ;i nor the words, 
 
 1 It contains the intermediate passage of the first Gospel : "It is easier for heaven 
 and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail ; " but that is inserted be- 
 tween two other passages — the former of which, " The law and the prophets endured 
 until John," &c., appears to imply the actual abrogation of the law; and the latter, 
 " whosoever putteth away his wife," &c., contains a formal contradiction of a part of 
 the Mosaic law. It is inconceivable that Jesus shoiild have matle the declaration in 
 question in this immediate juxtaposition with two other sajings, which by implication 
 contradict it ; and it is not easy to understand the object of the author in thus bring- 
 ing them together. If this were a solitaiy instance, one would be tempted to see in 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 215 
 
 " whoso looketh upon a woman to lust after her," &c. — nor the 
 prohibition of long prayers ; ^ nor that of oaths ; nor the injunc- 
 tion to secrecy in almsgiving, fasting, and prayer. It omits 
 also the story of the healing of the daughter of the woman of 
 Syro-Phenicia ; the limitation by Jesus of his own mission to the 
 lost sheep of the House of Israel, and the prohibition to the 
 twelve to enter the cities of the Samaritans or the way of the 
 Gentiles. The influence of the third Gospel upon the Christian 
 dogma has, indeed, been the efiect rather of what it has intro- 
 duced than of what it has omitted. Prevalent views with 
 regard to inspiration have prevented the formal rejection of 
 anything contained in the first Gospel merely upon the ground 
 that it did not also occur in the third ; and commentators 
 have endeavoured, not very successfully, to reconcile the two 
 narratives in theory, while in reality they have, for the most 
 part, quietly passed over the peculiarities of the first Gospel as 
 unimportant, or of only temporary interest, and have dwelt in 
 preference upon events and doctrines peculiar to the third. 
 
 The investigation we have pursued leads us to a difierent 
 conclusion. So far as external testimony is concerned, the 
 claims of the first Gospel are superior to those of the third, for it 
 is nearer, both in time and place, to the events which it records. 
 We are, indeed, unable to accept it as the work of an eye-wit- 
 ness, or even as throughout representing the traditions of the 
 Church at Jerusalem, previous to the destruction of the city, 
 while still governed by James. Many portions, however, appear 
 to date from that period ; and these, we may safely conclude, re- 
 
 the centre passage a note that some judaizing disciple had inserted in the margin of 
 his copy of the Gospel as a protest against the two other passages, and that some later 
 copjist had carried into the text. But such a solution of the difficulty appears impos- 
 sible. See D'Eichthal, Les Evangiles, II., 230. 
 
 1 The parables of the unjust judge and of the importunate neighbour are implicit 
 contradictions of this prohibition, siace they imply that persistency in supplication can 
 conquer the will of God. They almost justify the sentiment I have seen quoted from 
 Mons. Dupanloup, the present Bishop of Orleans, " Prayer equals, and even some- 
 times sm-passes, the power of God. It triumphs over his will, his power, and even 
 his justice.' ' 
 
216 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 present the teaching of Jesus as it was understood by those who 
 heard him. The third Gospel has no such pretensions ; and even 
 if, against probability and internal evidence, and the apparent 
 disclaimer of the writer, we could regard it as composed at an 
 equally early date with the first, and as following an independ- 
 ent tradition, that tradition would have been the one prevailing 
 among Gentile churches, and would have been influenced by 
 Gentile prepossessions. And the order of events, the character 
 of the incidents described, the picture drawn of the relation of 
 Jesus to the law, to his followers, and to his adversaries, are 
 more consistent with themselves and with surrounding cir- 
 cumstances, and more probable in the first Gospel than in the 
 third. 
 
 In the previous enquiry no argument has been founded upon 
 the character of the lessons inculcated, whether directly or by 
 inference, by the acts which are attributed to Jesus. It may be 
 quite probable, previously to an examination of the evidence, that 
 he should have pronounced an eulogium upon poverty and a de- 
 nunciation upon the wealthy, and that he should have announced 
 the forgiveness of a notorious sinner after a sole manifestation 
 of passionate love to himself. Upon this we pronounce no 
 opinion. But when the evidence that he did this is found only 
 in the work of an unknown writer, who professes merely to 
 relate at second-hand what he has gathered from others, — a 
 work altogether without corroboration, bearing marks of hav- 
 ing been shaped by doctrinal considerations, which contradicts 
 an earlier and better attested account, — it would seem that we 
 have no alternative but to reject it. The first and second 
 Gospels, therefore, and mainly the first, will furnish the mate- 
 rials employed in our subsequent attempt to delineate the 
 teaching, and to depict the life of Jesus. 
 
 Unquestionably it would be idle to expect to be able to do 
 either the one or the other completely. Nor does it appear pos- 
 sible to base any theological deductions upon particular expres- 
 sions or incidents. It does not, however, appear to be vain to 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 217 
 
 attempt to restore the image of Jesus as a prophet and martyr, 
 as it may have been conceived thirty years after his death, in 
 the memory and report of those who had known him during 
 the brief period of his public life. 
 
CHAPTER y. 
 
 THE PREACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 
 
 The essential feature of the teaching of Jesus, during that 
 period of his public life which we have attemj)ted to describe, 
 underlying the whole of his doctrine and supplpng the motive 
 for obedience to his lessons, was the speedy arrival of the King- 
 dom of Heaven. This was the good news which he himself 
 proclaimed, and commissioned his disciples to preach ; and to 
 this all else was accessory. The precepts which he inculcated 
 were the conditions of entrance into that Kingdom ; the pro- 
 mises which he held out were of the blessings it would offer ; 
 the penalty threatened was exclusion from its enjoyments. In 
 judging of the real nature of his teaching, therefore, it is 
 impossible to omit altogether the question of the character of 
 the Kingdom which he preached, as it was understood by his 
 hearers, if not by himself. 
 
 Our materials for this enquiry are very inadequate, and our 
 altered position renders any conclusions which we may draw ne- 
 cessarily uncertain. It is easy, comparatively, to combine into 
 one view the various notices of the Messiah and of his Kingdom 
 contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and from these to frame 
 a delineation of the Kingdom of Heaven, as we fancy it would 
 appear to one familiar with these writings, and who believed them 
 to be divinely inspired. But between the picture we so form, 
 and that formed from the same materials by an average Jew 
 of the time of Jesus, there is a difference not easy to estimate. 
 We cannot, by any effort of abnegation, divest our minds 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 219 
 
 of the ideas wliicli the last eighteen centuries have developed, 
 and which we inherit. Nor are we able to reproduce, com- 
 pletely, the ideas that have become obsolete during the same 
 period, but which were familiar to the whole Jewish people. 
 We have occasional glimpses of these latter in the New Testa- 
 ment, and in other writings of about the same period, but they 
 are fragmentary and inadequate. Even towards the close of 
 the second century, we see from the statement of Irengeus, 
 quoted above,^ how extravagant were the notions entertained as 
 to the material abundance and the coarse physical enjoyments 
 of the expected Kingdom, by a man so intelligent and in- 
 structed as, under some aspects, he undoubtedly was. And we 
 have no reason to suppose that the ordinary views of those 
 whom Jesus taught, even of his immediate followers, were less 
 extravagant and fantastical. 
 
 It is, no doubt, true that such a report of the conversation of 
 Jesus could not have proceeded from the author of the fourth 
 Gfospel, whose whole work pointedly excludes this class of ideas. 
 But it does not, on that account, follow that Irenseus was mis- 
 taken in attributing the report to the Apostle John ; or that 
 Jesus might not, in fact, have used such an illustration, or one 
 that was easily capable of taking that form. It is not safe, 
 from the public teaching of any one, to draw absolute conclu- 
 sions respecting the character of his familiar talk. The one may 
 be of the loftiest character and the other may be tinged by the 
 homely associations of childhood, and be on a level with the 
 feelings and capacities of his associates in their ordinary moods. 
 Many a statesman and philosopher, whose public utterances are 
 uniformly sustained and elevated, will habitually, we may say 
 inevitably, in the daily intercourse of common life, descend to 
 a lower tone of thought and sentiment, and employ illustrations 
 that he would deem quite unsuitable for a wider audience. And 
 this, we may be certain, was the case also with Jesus. In the 
 imreserved and confiding relations which existed between himself 
 
 1 p. 75. 
 
220 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 and his disciples, it is quite possible, therefore, that he might 
 have employed such an illustration when speaking of the 
 physical aspect of the coming Kingdom. It is, perhaps, quite 
 as probable that he should have done so, as that the statement 
 should have been falsely attributed to him. 
 
 Certainly, the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven, as understood 
 by the Jews, included, if it was not bounded by, a condition of 
 material ease and abundance. It was to be a period when, not 
 only should the earth yield its produce without stint, but, 
 literally, instead of the thorn should come up the fig tree, and 
 instead of the briar, the myrtle ; when aU should be blessed 
 with numerous offspring, and should sit in security under their 
 own vine and fig-tree, enjoying, without the necessity of labour, 
 the spontaneous produce of the renewed earth. And, beside this, 
 glory and supremacy were to be restored to Israel, and a full 
 measure of retribution was to be inflicted upon all the nations 
 at whose hands that people had suffered. "With these lower ex- 
 pectations were associated, in the minds of the more thoughtful 
 or more spiritual, hopes of a fuller manifestation of the presence 
 of Jehovah, and of a more intimate relation between himself and 
 his people. And we may be sure that all classes expected a re- 
 vival of the splendours of the ancient ritual, and the willing 
 observance of the law, in all its requirements, by the whole of 
 the restored people. 
 
 It is observable that in the Synoptical Gospels we have no re- 
 port of anything said by Jesus to the people, during this first 
 period of his public life, as to the nature of the Kingdom about 
 which he preached. He appears, in this respect, to have acqui- 
 esced in the views commonly entertained, possibly he himself 
 shared them. Possibly he was satisfied to work upon the hopes 
 actually entertained by his audience as motives to urge them to 
 the repentance which he required, without troubling himself to 
 correct errors that would in so short a period be dissipated by 
 the actual manifestation of the Kingdom itself. Indirectly his 
 teaching would tend to raise and purify the views of his hearers 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 221 
 
 as to its character, by insisting upon the necessity of a moral 
 amendment as a qualification for entrance into it ; and by ex- 
 hibiting to them a loftier standard of morality. We see, how- 
 ever, by the request of the wife of Zebedee on behalf of her 
 children, preferred long subsequently, that the old ideas on the 
 subject were not much changed, even among his immediate 
 followers. 
 
 The Sermon on the Mount is presented to us as a summary of 
 the early teaching of Jesus, before he had provoked the opposi- 
 tion of the Scribes and Pharisees, or had to lament the 
 fickleness of the multitude ; and we may probably accept it as 
 substantially accurate. In so far as we do so, we must regard it 
 as containing that which Jesus came to teach. It represents his 
 original conclusions, the result of his own reflexions upon the 
 true meaning of the law, and upon the character of Grod. His 
 later speeches have too often a tinge of controversy, or they dis- 
 play some expression of disappointment and reproach. Here all 
 is assured and calm. It is the teaching of one who is convinced 
 that his doctrine is not only true but sufficient, and who doubts 
 not that it will commend itseK to the consciences of all to whom 
 it is addressed. 
 
 As has been recently pointed out, it is difficult to regard this 
 discourse as anything but a collection and condensation of many 
 separate discourses, in which the same ideas were repeated with 
 the same or with varied illustrations. Upon a mixed multitude, 
 casually collected, who heard it for the first time, and once only, 
 it would leave no distinct or permanent impression. But of all 
 that pertains to the history of Jesus there is nothing that ap- 
 pears to be less coloured by the later ideas of the discij^les, or by 
 the controversies in which they were engaged, than the greater 
 portion of this sermon. It is true that here and there a passage 
 may be pointed out which is at variance with the general spirit, 
 or inconsistent with the position of Jesus at the time, and which 
 we may, therefore, regard as having been interpolated in the 
 
222 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 record, or added to the report while it still rested in tradition. 
 But these scarcely affect its general character. Here, therefore, 
 if anywhere, we may learn what Jesus taught as the essential 
 qualification for the enjoyment of the kingdom — what he thought 
 concerning the nature of God, and what of the duty of man. 
 
 The essential features of this discourse may be described as 
 an attempt to spiritualize the Mosaic law, and to elevate the 
 gentler virtues. The poor in spirit — the mourners — the meek 
 — they who hunger and thirst for justice — the merciful — the 
 peacemakers — the pure in heart — they who suffer because they 
 do rightly — such are the blessed of the kingdom ; those who 
 may rightly be called blessed, because to them the Kingdom of 
 Heaven shall be opened. It is scarcely necessary to point out 
 that, in this enumeration of virtues, there is no reference to 
 orthodoxy of creed, or correctness of ceremony — none to the 
 merits which the Jewish Phariseeism of that day, or Christian 
 Phariseeism since, has singled out for special encouragement. 
 The assumption of superiority, founded either upon a conscious 
 possession of true views of the nature of God, or of the scheme 
 of salvation, or upon a correct performance of all that the 
 Church requires, obtains no recognition here. It is not those 
 that are zealous for the truth, and eager to crush every form of 
 error, but the peacemakers — not the sound in doctrine, but the 
 pure in heart — not the combatants for a creed, but they who 
 hunger and thirst to do what is right, whom Jesus selects for 
 blessing. The others may have their usefulness, and may find 
 their appropriate position in the Church ; but Jesus, at least, 
 allots them no place in the kingdom that he announces. Not even 
 is Esau's blessing reserved for them. They are passed over alto- 
 gether, as though, contrary to the teaching of every church claim- 
 ing to be orthodox, correctness of dogma, and zeal for its mainte- 
 nance and propagation, were absolutely insignificant as compared 
 with humility, purity, peacefulness, and love. And this conclu- 
 sion is confirmed by other portions of the discourse. The tree 
 is to be known by its fruits — a corrupt tree cannot bring forth 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 223' 
 
 good fruits ; and, therefore, whoever manifests in his life the 
 spirit of the precepts which Jesus inculcates, is by that sign 
 alone known to be good. And, further, it is not he who be- 
 lieveth in the person and work of Jesus, but he who heareth 
 these sayings and doeth them, that is likened to a man that is 
 safe, because he has founded himself upon the rock of fact and 
 practice ; while he that heareth these sayings and doeth them 
 not, though accurate in belief, and unimpeachable in ceremony, 
 is to be likened to a man who is not safe, because he has built 
 upon the sandy foundation of mere belief and approval. 
 
 The more positive aspects of the doctrine of Jesus follow 
 these blessings addressed to certain characters. At the com- 
 mencement, stand the well-known phrases, "Ye are the salt 
 of the earth," " Ye are the light of the world," which have 
 since been applied with so much complacency by Christian 
 commentators either to the whole visible body of Christians, or 
 to that narrower circle which they recognize as comprising the 
 true Church. It seems clear, however, that these words were 
 originally addressed to the audience in their character of Jews. 
 At this time Jesus was in the first flush of success, and sur- 
 rounded by crowds drawn from various places, all eager to listen 
 to the good news which he proclaimed. There is nothing in the 
 narrative to suggest that apart from, and in the midst of these, 
 there was any select body, distinguished from the rest, to whom 
 his teaching was confined. He had, indeed, called four of the 
 apostles, but it would be difiicult to suppose that lessons of such 
 universal application should be addressed exclusively to them ; 
 and it would have been scarcely consistent with the spirit of 
 humility enjoined to have assigned to them such a position at 
 the time. Nor was there any intelligible sense in which this 
 language could be applied to persons, whether apostles or 
 others, who had only a few days before attached themselves 
 to Jesus, while there was an obvious and, even from the 
 modern orthodox point of view, a true sense in which they 
 might be appHed to the Jews, who, alone among the nations, 
 
224 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 preserved the knowledge and tlie worsliip of Jehovah, the one 
 true God. 
 
 And this is the impression produced by the account in the 
 Gospel. It is here, no doubt, that there is a seeming contrast 
 drawn between " the multitude," whose presence induced Jesus 
 to go up into the mountain, and the disciples who there came to 
 him. The last verse of chapter vii., however, shews that it was 
 the former who heard him, and to whom his lessons were ad- 
 dressed, for "the multitude^ were astonished at his doctrine, 
 for he taught them as one having authority." And this con- 
 clusion is confirmed by the distinctions drawn and the illustra- 
 tions employed throughout the discourse, which are uniformly 
 applicable to the hearers in their character of Jews, and not 
 in the narrower character of disciples of Jesus.'^ 
 
 To the audience, then, as Jews, was the announcement of the 
 privilege, the duty, and the danger. Thej'", as Jews, through 
 and for whom was the manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 were the " salt of the earth " the " light of the world," — upon 
 whom, not for their own sake merely, but for that of the 
 nations also, was cast the duty of preserving their savour and 
 of shewing forth their radiance. And they incurred the risk 
 individually, at least, if not as a nation, of being cast aside as 
 worthless if they failed in the performance of this duty. And 
 with this concurs the declaration that follows, of the perpetuity 
 of the law, and of the relation which the mission of Jesus bore 
 to it, — that he had not come to destroy, but to fulfil.^ The law 
 was addressed to the Jews, and was binding only upon them. 
 It was the visible seal of the covenant between Jehovah and 
 
 ^ ol 6x>^oi, the same word as that employed in chap. v. 1. 
 
 2 " Use not vain repetitions as the Gentiles; " " Do not even the publicans so ? " 
 " Be not as the hj-pocrites," etc. 
 
 * It has been suggested that this passage was only attributed to Jesus in view of 
 the Pauline controversy. But it must be remembered that Jesus was preaching a 
 new version of the law, and was, apparently, sanctioning lax practices. It was, 
 therefore, necessary to reassure his hearers with regard to his views as to the obliga- 
 tions of the law, and to prevent them from making his example an excuse for law- 
 lessness. 
 
THE JESL'S OF HISTORY. 225 
 
 themselves, as his people. To proclaim the permanence of the 
 law, and its continued obligation in the new Kingdom was, 
 therefore, to declare that the heirs of the Kingdom were to he 
 the Jews. I^ot merely were they the preserving and illuminat- 
 ing principle in the existing order of things, but their enjoy- 
 ment of the same position in the future was secured to them 
 by the promised continuance of their law. 
 
 Having thus reminded his hearers of their pre-eminence, 
 and assured them of the durability of the foundation upon 
 which that pre-eminence reposed, Jesus proceeds to expound 
 the true character of the law itself. It is not merely the out- 
 ward act that is forbidden, but even more, the disposition and 
 feelings of which the outward act is the expression. The law 
 forbids to kill ; but the principle of the prohibition applies 
 equally to reproachfid language, or to needless or unjust anger.^ 
 The law forbids adultery ; but to look upon a woman with a 
 deliberate desire and purpose of committing the oflPence is, it- 
 self, sinful, — an adultery of the heart. The law allows to the 
 husband a power of divorce; but whoever exercises that power 
 capriciously occasions adidtery. The law forbids perjury; but 
 every needless oath is, of itself, an offence. The law allows of 
 retaliation; but the spirit of the law, and the filial relation it 
 recognizes between God and man, require forbearance, forgive- 
 ness, submission to injury, and even love towards enemies and 
 wrong- doers, — for thus do men best show that they are the 
 children of him who showers the bounties of his Providence 
 alike upon the good and the evil — the just and the unjust. 
 Prayer, and fasting, and almsgiving are required ; but the 
 
 1 The translation in the authorized version gives altogether a false colour to the 
 teaching of Jesus in this respect, so far as regards the punishment attached to the 
 words he forbids. This vrill be evident from a brief consideration of the climax : — 
 Angry — Eaca — thou fool ; Judgment — Council — Hell-lire. Obviously, there is no 
 proportion between them, and -while the two former imply merely temporal and civil 
 punishments, the last, for a slightly aggravated offence, threatens a literally infinite 
 aggravation of penalty. The words of Jesus are "the gehenna of fire," referring to 
 the custom of ordering the bodies of certain criminals, after execution, to be burned 
 in the Valley of Hinnom, of which " gehenna " is the translation. The same remark 
 applies to the other instances in which "gehenna" is translated "Hell." — Dewes 
 " Plea for a Xew Translation of the Scriptures." 
 
 15 
 
226 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 prayer is to be that of a suppliant trusting in the knowledge, 
 and wisdom, and love of the Being whom he addresses, and 
 knowing that He neither needs to be instructed by our suppli- 
 cations, nor is capable of being influenced by our importunity.^ 
 And all these acts are to be performed from a feeling of need or 
 of duty, and not with a view to applause ; and so performed as 
 that men may not even be aware of the act, lest human should 
 take the place of divine approbation, and the favour of God 
 be lost because the praise of man has been obtained. There 
 is, moreover, to be a spirit of child-like dependance upon God 
 and trust in his love, and men are to approach him as a son 
 would his father, assured that a request will be granted, if 
 for the good of the applicant. And this trust in God, as a 
 loving and provident father, is to exclude all such anxiety for 
 the future as leads to the accumulation of earthly treasure. 
 Such cares may be suitable enough for the Gentiles, who know 
 not God; but, for those who have this knowledge, any undue 
 trouble implies a distrust of his love or of his power. He 
 feeds the fowls of the air ; he clothes the lilies of the field ; and 
 shall he not much more feed and clothe those whom he has 
 acknowledged to be his children ? We are to judge charitably 
 of the conduct of others, remembering that our own frailty ex- 
 poses us also to harsh judgments ; and that even in respect of 
 the very ofiences which we feel impelled to condemn, we may 
 ourselves be liable to a severer censure. And, besides and above 
 these motives, such charity is demanded by the law of love, 
 which requires that we should do to others whatever, in similar 
 circumstances, we should desire them to do to us. And who- 
 ever obeys these precepts from the heart, may securely rest his 
 hope upon such obedience in the midst of the storms and trials 
 of time, and in the hour of the greatest extremity, for he has 
 founded himself upon a rock. 
 
 1 There are other passages apparently, perhaps really, inconsistent vrith this view, 
 hut the present object is to ascertain what was the teaching of Jesus in this sermon ; 
 not how that teaching may be harmonized with other sayings, or what conclusions 
 may be drawn from a comparison of the whole. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 227 
 
 Sucli is, in substance, the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon 
 on the Mount. It is the teaching of a Jew, addressing Jews ; 
 founded upon the Mosaic law, and recognizing its authority • 
 but shewing that something higher and more spiritual is re- 
 quired than a mere literal fulfilment of its commands. How 
 far it was original, or whether it was in any degree derived 
 from the prior teaching of John, we have no means of judging. 
 If even we were entitled to regard the precepts attributed to 
 John, in the third Gospel, as having been really uttered by 
 him, we should still have no right to conclude that this was 
 all which he taught, or that his teaching did not rise, at least, 
 to the level of the old prophets, with whose writings he must 
 have been familiar, in requiring the obedience of the heart, 
 and in estimating justice, mercy, and faith, above ceremonial 
 observances or outward act. It may seem idle to state a 
 question which we have no means whatever of answering. At 
 least, however, it will serve the purpose of reminding us that 
 Jesus was, originally, a disciple of John, and received his 
 baptism; and, upon John's imprisonment, stepped into the 
 place which he had been compelled to abandon, and preached 
 the same doctrine in the same language. And this, at least, 
 makes it probable that the precepts taught by Jesus, as the 
 conditions of entrance into the Kingdom, were substantially 
 identical with those that John had taught before, 
 
 AVhat appears to have been really distinctive in this preach- 
 ing of Jesus, was that he taught these duties simply, without 
 requiring any preliminary profession or rite. His hearers were 
 not required, in order to qualify themselves to enter the King- 
 dom of Heaven, either to confess their sins, or to repeat any 
 creed, or to be baptized, or to separate themselves from the 
 world. No external observance of whatever kind was pre- 
 scribed. To have done this, indeed, would have contradicted 
 the whole spirit of the lessons inculcated; for these assumed 
 throughout that such observances are worthless. All that was 
 needful was to obey the precepts of the law in their fuU inner 
 
228 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 signification, while continuing to follow the ordinary pursuits 
 of life, and to wait in patient hope for the manifestation of 
 Jehovah. 
 
 This, indeed, implied, further, that the coming of the 
 Kingdom was to be altogether supernatural, that it was 
 to be effected by some power of sufficient efficacy, without 
 requiring to be helped by a rising of the people. If nothing 
 more were needed of those who were expecting its arrival 
 than that they should prepare themselves by meekness, purity, 
 and righteousness, this could only be because Jehovah would 
 himself effectually perform the work. And, hence, the doctrines 
 taught by Jesus were essentially peaceful. They were associated, 
 indeed, with a hope that had been the fruitful source of turbu- 
 lence and rebellion ; but they presented this hope in a new 
 light, and made its reaKzation depend upon new conditions. It 
 is doubtful if this consequence of his teaching was fully re- 
 alized by his hearers. In so far as it was, it would, probably, 
 weaken the impression produced. And even if it had not this 
 effect at first, it would, practically, lose its influence when it 
 was found that there was no such supernatural intervention of 
 Jehovah as the hearers had been led to expect. 
 
 However this may be, there is nothing, probably, in the 
 whole discourse that would not have been assented to by every 
 pious Jew among the hearers, with as much cordiality as by a 
 modern Christian ; nay, with more. For the former would 
 have accepted the teaching simply as it was delivered, while 
 the latter qualifies its purport by later developments of doctrine, 
 and empties the concluding passage, especially, of all significance. 
 No Christian divine, at the present day, would venture to preach 
 that such obedience, as is within the power of average men (and 
 this was, necessarily, the meaning of Jesus), if performed from 
 the heart, will be a sufficient foundation for hope in time and 
 in eternity ; ^ or if he did so preach, he would be scouted as 
 
 ' Necessarily the meaning of Jesus, — that is if, we suppose him to have meant 
 what he knew that all his hearers would understaud him to mean. 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 229 
 
 an infidel. But to the Jew this doctrine would be in strict 
 conformity with what he had learned from the law and the 
 prophets. And, although, among the commands, there were 
 some that, in their form, were novel, yet in their spirit they 
 were akin to much that the old law contained. Even the most 
 difiicult, — those requiring forgiveness of injuries and love of 
 enemies, — apart from the reasons assigned for their practice, 
 which a Jew would admit to be valid, possessed an especial 
 appropriateness from the circumstance, that in a brief time, 
 when the better age commenced, the superiority of the Jewish 
 people would be so evident that other nations would not retain 
 the power or the will to injure them further ; but, on the con- 
 trary, all would be drawn by an irresistible attraction to sup- 
 plicate for a share in their privileges. 
 
 There are some passages not included in the preceding sum- 
 mary of the discourse, because it appears impossible to believe 
 that they originally belonged to it. One of these is the blessing 
 pronounced upon those who are persecuted for the sake of Jesus. 
 It follows the blessing pronounced on those who are persecuted 
 for righteousness sake, of which it might be taken to be another 
 form, but it greatly modifies its character, and introduces a 
 strange and heterogeneous element into the group of blessings. 
 It suggests, too, a state of things that we have no reason to 
 suppose existed at the time. Jesus till then had done nothing 
 but preach the good news of the kingdom, and call four of his 
 disciples ; and he had not, so far as appears, in any way identi- 
 fied himself with the kingdom, excepting as its herald. To 
 pronounce those blessed who were persecuted for his sake, would 
 have been an assumption of personal importance inconsistent with 
 his seeming position, for which nothing could have prepared his 
 audience, and inconsistent also with the impersonal character of 
 the residue of his discourse. It would have been unmeaniug to 
 his audience, for he had not called upon them to follow him. It 
 would, besides, have been regarded as savouring of presumption 
 that one, himself so lately a. disciple of John, who had only 
 
230 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 just assumed tlie oflBce of teaclier, sliould have placed tlie cir- 
 cumstance of being persecuted for his sake on a level with the 
 various virtues which he had enumerated, and should raise those 
 who endured it to the level of the prophets. Nor is it easy to 
 understand what sense could have been attached to the words 
 by the multitude. Persecution for doing what was right — 
 persecution for the Kingdom — persecution for the sake of 
 Jehovah — would have been intelligible ; but persecution for 
 the sake of Jesus would have awakened no response in the 
 minds of his hearers. 
 
 It would seem, consequently, that such a blessing could 
 scarcely have been uttered by Jesus at this time, any more than 
 could another passage that we have also omitted, "Not every 
 one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord," etc.^ (Matt. vii. 21, 22, 23). 
 This latter saying implies, moreover, a distinct public claim to 
 be the Messiah, which, as being made at this period of his life, 
 is inconsistent with the whole character of the narrative. If he 
 had thus openly asserted himself to be the Lord and Judge, 
 whose fiat was to decide absolutely upon the admission or rejec- 
 tion of those who sought entrance into the Kingdom, and if he 
 had taught his hearers that works done in his name might be 
 urged as a proof of a right to be admitted, it is not easy to 
 understand how this claim could have been so completely over- 
 looked both by the multitude and by his disciples. " The mul- 
 titude were astonished," but only at his doctrine, and because 
 he taught "as one having authority;" but surely they would have 
 been much more astonished if the preacher of the kingdom had 
 thus suddenly assumed to be its king, and the teacher who de- 
 clared what were terms of admission had claimed to be also the 
 Judge who was to decide whether those terms had been fulfilled. 
 And there is nothing to shew that his disciples understood that, 
 at that time, he put forth any such pretensions ; but on the con- 
 
 1 This is one of the passages that may probably be referred to the Pauline contro- 
 versy. The author of the first Gospel never applies the epithet "Lord" to Jesus, 
 while Paul seldom omits it. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 231 
 
 trary, the emphatic praise pronounced upon Peter at a far later 
 period, for recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, is inconsistent with 
 any such previous claim to that character as is implied in the 
 passage we are now examining. 
 
 Our conclusion, so far, may be objected to from two points 
 of view. It may be said that, since our only authority for 
 the belief that any such discourse was pronounced, or any 
 such doctrines taught by Jesus, is the narrative in question, 
 we are boxmd to accept it as sufficient, or to reject it in its 
 entirety ; that we have no right to exclude portions that come 
 to us vouched by the same witness whose testimony we accept 
 with regard to the residue. And hence, those who doubt the 
 report, so far as these passages are concerned, will see in that 
 doubt a reason for distrusting the whole. And, on the other 
 hand, those who agree with us in accepting the other portions 
 of the report, will argue that the evidence we allow to be suffi- 
 cient with regard to these portions ought to be admitted as suffi- 
 cient throughout ; and, perhaps, there is no complete answer 
 to be given to these objections. It is no doubt true that to 
 assign reasons for discrediting one portion of a narrative does 
 tend to throw a doubt over the whole, since it necessarily im- 
 peaches either the knowledge or the truthfulness of the narrator; 
 and, if incorrect in one part, he may be so in all. And so of the 
 opposite argument. As, however, after all, these are questions 
 of degree ; as scarely any narrative is accepted as containing all 
 that did, and nothing that did not occur ; and as, consequently, 
 there never can be any but probable conclusions in matters rest- 
 ing on evidence, while yet these conclusions are found sufficient 
 to guide us in the affiiirs of life, and in historical judgments; 
 there is nothing illogical or unreasonable in the attempt to dis- 
 tinguish between what is true and what is false in any given 
 narrative. Of course, in such a case any one is at liberty to 
 dissent from the conclusion on the ground that the reasoning is 
 unsatisfactory, but not on the ground that the process is neces- 
 sarily illusory. 
 
232 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 We have already stated our reasons for supposing that the first 
 Gospel contains accounts with regard to the life of Jesus which 
 were current in the church at Jerusalem within about thirty- 
 years after his death, and were, about that time, reduced to 
 writing. Among the members of that church were persons who 
 had known Jesus during the whole of his public career ; at 
 least from the time that Peter, Andrew, James, and John 
 became his disciples. If we were sure that the Gospel, as we 
 possess it, was substantially the same as the original writing 
 from which we suppose it to have been in part derived, we 
 might be able to rely upon it as generally accurate. Even in 
 that case we might still question its correctness with regard to 
 details ; and especially might see grounds for doubting whether 
 particular sayings attributed to Jesus at one period of his life 
 were spoken then or subsequently. We should remember the 
 many causes that might confuse recollection — the propensity 
 to exaggeration that always characterizes traditional accounts of 
 great men ; the inclination to assume that Jesus must have said 
 something applicable to every contingency that might arise, and 
 the tendency to supply from the imagination any seeming gaps 
 in the memory. But no one would have a right, on critical 
 grounds, on the one hand to throw aside the entire narrative as 
 worthless, when it depicts so marked and, on the whole, so con- 
 sistent an individuality as that of Jesus, because it narrates 
 incidents that are incredible, or attributes to him actions or say- 
 ings improbable or inconsistent with the general picture ; nor on 
 the other, to insist upon the truth of every saying recorded 
 and act related, however improbable or inconsistent, because 
 contained in the history. The credibility or the reverse of 
 any particular portion would have to be determined by a 
 process of induction, in which, as the premises are necessarily 
 in some degree uncertain, the conclusions to be formed would 
 be afiected by a like uncertainty ; though not in a greater 
 degree than, in the nature of things, attaches to all similar 
 investigations. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 233 
 
 To apply this process, then, to the Sermon on the Mount. 
 We find, throughout the greater portion, a style of teaching 
 characterized by depth, elevation, and earnestness, which bears 
 apparently the impress of an individual mind. It is consist- 
 ent with the character of Jesus as he is portrayed in the first 
 Gospel, and with his position as a Jew announcing to Jews the 
 good news of the Kingdom ; and, probably, it is one of the por- 
 tions that formed part of the original Gospel. There is reason, 
 consequently, to believe that it so far represents the real cha- 
 racter of the teaching of Jesus at this period of his life. Inter- 
 mingled with this are passages that appear inconsistent with 
 his position, and that would have been either unintelligible to 
 his hearers, or, if understood, would have excited a degree of at- 
 tention to his personal claims which the narrative, by implication, 
 contradicts ; and, at the same time, these passages accord with 
 the view taken of his character many years after his death. 
 The same process of reasoning, therefore, which leads us to accept 
 the discourse as a generally faithful representation of the earliest 
 teaching of Jesus, disposes us to reject these passages, and to re- 
 gard them as later inventions, either interpolated into the Gospel 
 itself after it was written, or, more probably, into the tradition 
 which the written Gospel represents. 
 
 It will be seen, however, that neither of these alleged sayings 
 of Jesus transcend the sphere of Jewish ideas. It is only as 
 spoken of himself, at this period of his life, and on such an 
 occasion, that they would have surprised or repelled his hearers. 
 If we could suppose that Jesus, at this time, had announced him- 
 self to be the Messiah, and had been accepted as such by the 
 multitude ; or if these words had been uttered on the occasion 
 of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, there would have been 
 nothing in either of the sayings that his hearers might not 
 have understood and approved. As Messiah, those who be- 
 lieved in him and were persecuted for his sake might weU be 
 regarded as blessed, for they were certain to be acknowledged 
 by him ; and he would be allowed to have the power of re- 
 
234 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 ceiving or rejecting the candidates for admission into his 
 Kingdom. Eut upon the next occasion on which he is re- 
 presented as addressing the surrounding multitude, the entire 
 aspect of his teaching is changed. Those to whom he spoke were, 
 apparently, the same as those who had listened to his discourse 
 on the mountain, and been induced to follow him. They 
 are further described as having witnessed the miracle of healing 
 upon a leper, and as having heard the command of Jesus to the 
 man whom he had healed, to go and do all that the law re- 
 quired. Soon after, his tone and attitude, in this respect, are 
 altered. Instead of continuing to preach the good news of the 
 Kingdom to the Jews, he announces in language impossible to 
 be mistaken that the Gentiles should be admitted to the Kingdom 
 from which the others were to be cast out. The occasion, too, 
 for the manifestation of this change is as singular as the change 
 itself is unaccountable. A certain Gentile centurion comes to 
 Jesus, beseeching him that he will heal his servant, address- 
 ing him by the title of " Lord," and manifesting an excess of 
 humility, strangely contrasting with their respective positions ; — 
 on the one side a commander of the Roman troops, and on the 
 other an artisan, who had only recently assumed the office of a 
 preacher.^ Jesus, in consideration of this, not only heals the 
 servant by a mere act of volition, but declares to the by- 
 standers that he has " not seen so great faith, no not in 
 Israel ; " and he then proceeds to pronounce the sentence of 
 exclusion from the Kingdom to which we have referred. 
 
 If we are to regard the account as true, our only conclusion, 
 however painfid and seemingly irreverent it might appear, 
 would be that Jesus was so flattered by the homage thus paid 
 him by a foreigner of rank and influence, as to become for- 
 getful or ungrateful towards his disciples. Surely those who at 
 
 ' The Jews were regarded by the Roman legionaries in much the same manner as 
 the Hindoos are regarded by the English troops quartered among them. The im- 
 probability of the account may, therefore, be judged of by supposing the parties to be 
 an Indian Fakir, and the colonel of an English regiment of cavalry. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 235 
 
 his call liad abandoned their home and occupation had shewn, 
 practically, a greater faith than that which the centurion dis- 
 played. They had trusted themselves and their fortunes to his 
 guidance; had "left all and followed him." And even this 
 assumption accounts only for one half of the speech. It might 
 have induced Jesus to recognize and declare the fact that the 
 Gentiles should be admitted, but it could supply no motive to 
 proclaim that the Jews should be cast out from the Kingdom. 
 Assuming that this signal display of faith had impressed upon 
 him the conviction that beKeving Gentiles, of whom this 
 centurion was the type, should sit down in the Kingdom of 
 Heaven with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and that he 
 considered the occasion suitable for the enforcement of this 
 truth, why should the Jews — the children of the Kingdom — 
 be excluded; and what was there in the circumstances to in- 
 duce him to warn them of their exclusion ? And even if this 
 question could be satisfactorily answered, there would be the 
 further difficulty, — that this pointed approval of a Gentile, 
 and sentence of reprobation passed upon the Jews, provoked no 
 hostility, and even, apparently, failed to excite any attention. 
 "Whoever will fairly weigh these improbabilities — that a Roman 
 officer, quartered in Galilee, should have addressed Jesus in the 
 manner described ; that Jesus should have declared this man's 
 faith to be superior to that of the most eminent of the Apostles, 
 who had already given up all for him; that he should have 
 taken this opportunity of proclaiming to the Jews that they 
 should be cast out from the Kingdom of Heaven ; — and that 
 all this should produce no manifestation of anger, or even of 
 astonishment, will assuredly feel that there is great reason to 
 suspect the accuracy of the narrative. And if he further 
 considers the inconsistency between the conduct here attributed 
 to Jesus towards this Gentile, who was a man in authority, and 
 that subsequently pursued in the case of the humble Syro- 
 Phenician woman, whose prayer for help he, in the first in- 
 stance, rejects, on the ground that he is only sent to the lost 
 
236 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 sheep of the house of Israel ; and the still greater inconsistency 
 between the prediction of the casting out of the Jews, and his 
 own conduct in immediately afterwards preaching the good 
 news of the Kingdom in aU the cities and villages of the 
 district, and in sending his Apostles to preach exclusively to 
 Israelites ; and that this incident, shocking, as it must, all the 
 most cherished feelings of his nation, appears in its most anti- 
 judaical form in that which is recognized as in tone and senti- 
 ment the most Jewish of all the Gospels, he can scarcely avoid 
 the conclusion that the whole incident is a later interpolation. 
 And this inference cannot but be strengthened by the fact 
 that the event is not related in the second Gospel, where it 
 would unquestionably have had a place if the writer had been 
 aware of its existence. 
 
 And if it should be said, as perhaps it may, that the 
 seeming inconsistencies in the conduct and speeches of Jesus 
 are capable of being reconciled in some higher sphere of 
 thought, or that they are only the apparent or real contra- 
 dictions into which men will be betrayed when they have to 
 apply extreme principles to the various circumstances in which 
 they are placed ; at least we have a right to say that such a 
 story could not have obtained currency in the Church of Jeru- 
 salem, or have been inserted in a Gospel composed for the use 
 of Jewish disciples. Those who opposed Paul because he opened 
 the door of the Church to Gentiles, as such, as well as to Jews, 
 could not have believed or have accepted a statement that Jesus 
 himself, on so memorable an occasion, had predicted, not their 
 common enjoyment of the glories of the Kingdom, but that 
 those glories should be exclusively, or principally, the lot of 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 If, then, we reject this incident as intrinsically improbable, 
 and as not belonging to the earliest tradition, the teaching 
 and conduct of Jesus are consistent and homogeneous ; ap- 
 propriate to his assumed character and actual position. If, 
 however, a respect for the authority of the first Gospel as 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 237 
 
 it stands, leads any one to regard the account as true, it is 
 impossible to form any harmonious conception of the doctrine 
 which Jesus taught, and it would be very difficult to acquit 
 him of something like duplicity or temporizing. On that 
 assumption the only conclusion would appear to be that the 
 declaration on the Mount as to the permanence of the law was 
 intended for the multitude ; and was made in order to prevent 
 them from being repelled from a teacher whose real mission was 
 to put an end to the existing order of things — to abrogate the 
 law, and to destroy the privileges of the children of Israel ; while 
 the speech made in the presence of the centurion was addressed 
 to a narrower circle, who were aware of his ultimate purpose. 
 It is difficult to say whether such a conclusion would do most 
 violence to the text or to our idea of Jesus. At any rate we 
 should rather believe that tradition was mistaken, or that a pas- 
 sage had been interpolated, than that Jesus had been guilty of 
 duplicity.^ 
 
 Up to this time there is no hint in the first Gospel of any op- 
 position provoked by the teaching of Jesus. He preaches " the 
 Kingdom," and proclaims his doctrine to enthusiastic and assent- 
 ing audiences. Neither Scribes nor Pharisees have yet appeared 
 upon the scene to question his orthodoxy, to deny his mission, 
 or to attribute his power of exorcism to Beelzebub. But this 
 state of tranquillity could not in the nature of things be of long 
 continuance. A teacher who gathered multitudes around him, 
 
 1 It will be seen that we do not reject tlie incident on the ground of its imputing 
 unworthy conduct to Jesus, but upon grounds altogether independent of this ; and only 
 refer to it as an answer to those who insist, at all hazards, upon vindicating the inte- 
 grity and accuracy of the text. A hundred subtle arguments may be invented to show 
 the possibility of reconciling the two sapngs, but to admit any of these would be to con- 
 vict Jesus of intentional deception. "What he must be taken to have meant was what 
 he supposed his hearers to have understood him to mean ; and certainly he could not 
 have supposed that any of those subtleties were present to their minds. 
 
238 THE JESUS or history. 
 
 to whom he taught the insufficiency of the rules of conduct pre- 
 scribed by their recognised instructors, and held out these latter 
 as examples of defective righteousness, must necessarily provoke 
 the hostility of those whose maxims and whose conduct he im- 
 pugned. And indications of this begin shortly to appear ; just 
 in proportion as we may imagine that the original enthusiasm 
 of his followers was abated by the delay in the fulfilment of his 
 predictions. The points of attack selected were such as might 
 be expected to have weight with the multitude, — not his dis- 
 courses, but the manner in which he exemplified his principles 
 in his life. And that these should have been selected, when 
 taken in connection with the well-known sensitiveness of the 
 people to anything that appeared to question the obligation of 
 the law, or their own exclusive privileges, shews conclusively 
 that there was nothing said or done by Jesus that exposed him 
 to an attack on this ground. His enemies assailed his free and 
 unascetic mode of life — his disregard of the traditional rules for 
 the observance of the law — and his admitting publicans and 
 sinners (whoever the latter might be) to his society, and even 
 eating with them. 
 
 The first ground of objection is reported as originally taking 
 the form of a friendly enquiry by the disciples of John, " Why 
 do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not ?" It 
 is obvious, however, from the speech attributed to Jesus on the 
 occasion of the message from John, that this accusation, or the 
 conduct which it attacked, had produced a deep impression ; 
 and that, in combination with the last of the above charges, 
 it was employed as an argument, not merely against his 
 mission, but against his character. " The Son of Man came 
 eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous 
 and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." It is 
 clear that whether we accept the speech as historical or not, 
 this passage could scarcely have been introduced unless ac- 
 cusations of this nature had been made against Jesus, to which 
 his conduct had given a seeming colour. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 239 
 
 Taken as a whole, the impression produced by the narrative 
 would be that Jesus shared the repasts, and partook of the 
 enjoyments, of his disciples and of those who were favourably 
 disposed towards him ; that he disregarded the pharisaic pre- 
 cepts with regard to fasting, the mode of eating and ceremonial 
 washings ; and that he equally disregarded the ban placed upon 
 certain individuals in cases where he saw indications of repent- 
 ance and amendment. His conduct in this respect was a part 
 of his teaching, and formed the complement to his oral in- 
 struction. As in the one he taught that purity of heart was 
 essential, so in the other he showed that ceremonial unclean- 
 ness was immaterial ; as in the one he taught that fasting was 
 to be unostentatious and even hidden, so in the other he showed 
 that God might be served without fasting at all ; as in the one 
 he said " Judge not that ye be not judged," so in the other 
 he practically refused to concur in the sentence of condemnation 
 pronounced upon a class. ■ The effect of the two — the doctrine and 
 the practice — appears, however, to have been widely different. 
 Those who listened approvingly while he taught in precept the 
 one aspect of his principle, shrank from him with feelings akin 
 to disgust, when in practice he exemplified the other. It was 
 one thing to be told that they were to judge charitably, and 
 another thing to see an example of this charitable judgment in 
 the act of accepting the hospitality of a social pariah by the very 
 man whom they had followed as their teacher ; one thing to 
 learn that they were to fast in secret, and another thing to see 
 what they considered the duty of fasting systematically disre- 
 garded } one thing to hear that they were to .regard the spirit 
 of an act as alone essential, and another thing to see persons 
 eating bread with unwashed hands ; one thing to listen to de- 
 nunciations of pharisaic formalism, and another thing to see the 
 new teacher of righteousness living the common life of men, 
 sharing in their feasts, and imposing by his presence no restraint 
 upon their enjoyments. It must always be difficult to regard as 
 raised above the common level of virtue and holiness, a person 
 
240 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 who is seen not merely to share in all innocent social enjoyments, 
 but to set at nought the rules which religious men, or those who 
 pass for such, habitually observe, and even to visit and feast 
 with those who are degraded by a hateful occupation, or pol- 
 luted by notorious sins. No doubt wisdom is justified by her 
 children, but not in the sight of the ascetic or the ceremonialist, 
 and scarcely in the eye of the multitude. In fact, it is only by 
 those who are themselves her children that the true character of 
 such conduct can be appreciated. 
 
 It is not, however, improbable that, so far as the charge of 
 being a friend of publicans and sinners is concerned, it was in 
 substance a misrepresentation.^ Jesus is, no doubt, described 
 as accepting the hospitality of one who had been a publican ; ^ 
 but, as already pointed out, only after he had apparently for- 
 saken his occupation to become a disciple. To publicans, as 
 such, while continuing to exercise the functions of their office, 
 Jesus does not appear to have entertained any different feelings 
 from those of the Jews in general. In the Sermon on the 
 Mount, and, in fact, to the end of his career, he repeatedly 
 refers to publicans, as persons from whom nothing excellent 
 was to be expected. "Do not even the publicans so?" And 
 the only occasion on which he is represented as being brought 
 into social relations with them, is, apparently, that of the feast 
 given by Matthew to signalize his relinquishment of office. No 
 doubt, in accepting the services and companionship of one of 
 this class, in taking him into immediate attendance upon his 
 own person, and in sitting down at his table as a guest with 
 others of the same class (for none else would have accepted 
 Matthew's hospitality), Jesus must have deeply shocked the 
 prejudices of the people. But there is a marked difference 
 between his actual conduct in accepting a publican who was 
 ready to repent, and to reform, and to abandon his obnoxious 
 
 1 It would hardly be so if wc Tveve to accept the third Gospel as otir authority. 
 
 2 Such, at least, appears to be the purport of the story iu the first Gospel. It is 
 not, however, here quite free fi-oni ambiguity. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 241 
 
 or unlawful calling, and wlio actually did this before being 
 received into tbe number of his disciples, and that which 
 appears to have been attributed to him — that of associating 
 with them while practising their calling, and without requir- 
 ing them to abandon it. The right view of the conduct of 
 Jesus in this respect, according to the first Gospel, appears 
 to be that he did not consider a publican, or any one, as ex- 
 cluded from the Kingdom of Heaven by his past occupation 
 or conduct, if he was prepared to comply with the conditions 
 of repentance and amendment ; and that he practically mani- 
 fested this feeling by receiving and associating with those in 
 whom the appropriate signs of repentance and reformation 
 were exhibited. But that he did not, by preference, seek 
 such, is shewn by the list of the Apostles, and appears to 
 result from the whole narrative. 
 
 But even this was a stretch of liberality beyond the com- 
 prehension of his contemporaries. That to sinners, not merely 
 those who complacently confessed themselves to be such when 
 repeating the penitential psalms, while secretly or avowedly 
 priding themselves upon their complete and even superfluous 
 righteousness, but to the coarse, actual, open violators of the 
 law — the hated instruments of Koman tyranny — extortioners, 
 unjust — " these publicans ; " — that to these the Kingdom of 
 Heaven and the society of good men should be opened on the 
 same terms as to others ; — that all, even the best, needed to re- 
 pent and to amend, and that none, even the worst, needed to do 
 more, would appear, to orthodox Jews, to sap the very founda- 
 tions of morality. It was true that, for this also, there was 
 warrant in their sacred writings. That God would forgive 
 upon repentance ; that the just man, falling into sin, would 
 not be saved by his former righteousness ; and that the wicked 
 man, repenting and forsaking his wickedness, would not be 
 condemned by reason of his former iniquity, had been long 
 before proclaimed in the name of Jehovah. The practical 
 realization of this principle, however, and its aj)plication to 
 
 16 
 
242 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 this most hated form of lawlessness, gave an entirely different 
 aspect to the whole question. It brought into vivid relief the 
 full import of what men professed to believe ; and while it, 
 no doubt, shocked the multitude, and aggravated the hostility 
 and disdain of the party of the Pharisees, it must have led 
 some, at least, to understand the true significance of the 
 principles to which they had been in the habit of giving a 
 merely formal assent. It taught them the equality of all, at 
 least of the circumcision, in the sight of Jehovah ; and that 
 as he did not exclude from his Kingdom any one who ex- 
 hibited true repentance, so they should not exclude such an 
 one from their fellowship. 
 
 This conduct appears to have been one of the chief causes of 
 the ultimate rejection of Jesus in Galilee, and there is, probably, 
 no part of his example that has had so little effect upon the feel- 
 ings and habits of respectable Christians. It can scarcely be 
 doubted that any one who, at the present day, in this respect 
 imitated the example of Jesus, would expose himself to the 
 same reproaches. So little have even his influence and example 
 availed in the very bosom of the Christian Church. Not that 
 those who would be scandalized by such conduct can be suspected 
 of having any but sound views with regard to the nature of sin, 
 or the impossibility of claiming any merit before God. They 
 would be the first to admit that all have sinned — that their very 
 "righteousness is as filthy rags" — that as sinners all men are 
 equal in the sight of God — that all sin is infinite, and that, there- 
 fore, there are no degrees of guilt as between man and God. 
 But, nevertheless, they cannot but feel that as between one man 
 and another a very great difference may be perceived. All sins 
 may alike deserve eternal wrath, but all do not alike demand 
 social reprobation. All are equal in the sight of God, but to the 
 eye of man a distinction is apparent, which, in the interests of 
 society, it is important to mark. Some sins are low, and exclude 
 the criminal from the society of gentlemen. Some involve a loss 
 of honour, and exclude the sinner from the society of ladies. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 243 
 
 Nay, when two persons concur in the same sin, the one who may 
 be the more guilty, shall, upon a mere graceful acknowledgment 
 of his error, be admitted almost without a stain upon his cha- 
 racter into the most eminentl}^ Christian circles, while the other, 
 less guilty it may be, shall be excluded for life, as though, in 
 spite of repentance and expiation, the pollution of her offence 
 could never in this world be effaced.^ There may be good 
 reasons for this difference. At any rate, the question is far too 
 wide to be discussed here. But such procedure on the part of 
 those who profess to be Christians is at variance with the prin- 
 ciple involved in the conduct of Jesus, when, being assured of 
 the repentance of Matthew the publican, he sat down to meat 
 at his table. 
 
 As has been before observed, there are grounds for supposing 
 that the calling of Matthew was to some extent coincident with 
 a change of feeling towards Jesus, which, perhaps, it had no 
 small share in producing. It may, however, be suggested that 
 this selection of a publican was the result of the proved in- 
 difference or hostility of the more respectable classes. After, 
 or about this time, the attitude of the people and the character 
 of the preaching of Jesus seem to have altered. First, the 
 Pharisees are represented as taking exception to his eating with 
 publicans and sinners ; then the disciples of John demand an 
 explanation of the neglect of the duty of fasting on the part 
 both of Jesus and his disciples ; then the Pharisees attribute 
 his power of casting out devils to Beelzebub. Further, we 
 find a protest from Jesus himself against the censure of those 
 who accused him of being gluttonous and a winebibber, ac- 
 companied by a denunciation of those places that had heard 
 his preaching, and had witnessed his wonderful works, because 
 of their unbelief, and followed by what may almost be taken 
 
 1 An illustration of this from the writings of an eminent Christian, who is an acute 
 reasouer and liberal-minded man, may be read in the work on " Marriage with a 
 Deceased Wife's Sister," by the Eev. Thomas Biuney. 
 
244 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 as an acknowledgment that his mission had failed, so far as 
 regarded the instructed and respectable — the thankgiving that 
 the doctrines he taught were " hid from the wise and prudent, 
 and revealed unto babes." 
 
 It would seem, indeed, that the defection was not confined to 
 the higher classes, since there appears to be also, about the same 
 time, a change in the character of his public discourses. He is 
 no longer the preacher of righteousness, proclaiming the blessed- 
 ness of those who are loving and holy, declaring in words that 
 all may understand the spiritual aspect of the law and its inward 
 requirements, and promising safety to those who do what he 
 commands. He is engaged in controversy, defending his cha- 
 racter and conduct against open assailants ; or he is the utterer 
 of dark sayings, which he justifies on the ground that the 
 people are dull and indifierent and do not deserve to receive 
 direct instruction. He is still described as performing miracles, 
 and as being followed by multitudes. The miracles, however, 
 either excite no attention, as those of healing, or are referred to 
 diabolical agency, as those of casting out devils. The multitudes 
 listen to denunciations of his opponents, or are addressed in 
 parables the interpretation of which is withheld from them. 
 Even that touching speech, which has been the consolation of 
 millions, and which few can at any time read without emotion : 
 " Come unto unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden 
 and I will give you rest," etc., appears rather to have been the 
 outburst of an overladen heart, unable to restrain the expression 
 of its unreciprocated love, than an address to any present audi- 
 ence. He has tried to awaken the people, and, learning their 
 fickleness, he turns to a narrower but more appreciative circle 
 to which to impart his instructions ; feeling, apparently, that, 
 so far as the advent of the Kingdom depends upon the pre- 
 paredness of the multitude, it cannot as yet be looked for. 
 
 Such, at least, appears to be the purport of the narrative, 
 and this view enables us to understand the varied aspects of the 
 teaching of Jesus, which otherwise would seem to be unintelligi- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 245 
 
 ble. It would be unsafe to rely upon the precise order of the 
 events, in a history composed from tradition so many years after 
 their occurrence ; but the general impression produced is such as 
 we have described. He had attacked the Pharisees, exhibiting 
 them as examples of the defective righteousness which his fol- 
 lowers are not to imitate, and now they in their turn become the 
 assailants. They deride his pretensions to Divine inspiration.^ 
 They attack his non-observance of their ceremonial precepts, 
 notably as regards the observance of the Sabbath ; ^ and they 
 require that he should shew some sign as a proof of his author- 
 ity to teach new doctrines.^ He replies to them partly by 
 argument, reiterating, in new forms and with varied illustra- 
 tions, the principles he had previously laid down in the Sermon 
 on the Mount, and partly by invective ; and appeals from them 
 to the multitude. His appeal, however, seemingly awakens no 
 response, for, after a few parables, he decides upon quitting the 
 district, and retiring for a time into his own city, Nazareth. 
 Here, however, he receives no support, and being followed by 
 his adversaries even into the desert, whither he had withdrawn 
 himself, he finally seeks a refuge in the land of the Gentiles, 
 
 The position of Jesus in reference to the observance of the 
 Sabbath would seem to be analogous to that now assumed by 
 the more liberal of the Scotch clergy with regard to the obser- 
 vance of the Lord's Day. He did not deny the sacredness of 
 the seventh day, or the obligation imposed upon all Israelites to 
 abstain from labour during its continuance. The contrary, in 
 fact, was directly implied in his declaration of the permanence 
 of the Jewish law, and the necessity of fulfilling all, even the 
 least of its commandments. But he protested in this, as in 
 other respects, against the narrow technical rules by which the 
 commandment was overlaid, and which prevented its true cha- 
 racter from being perceived. The Sabbath was made for man ; 
 it was designed as an interval of repose and relaxation in 
 which the mind and body might be rested and refreshed, and 
 
 1 Matt. ix. 34 ; xii. 24, 2 Matt. xii. 2-9, seq. 3 Matt. xii. 38, scq. 
 
2.46 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 not as a period of wearying restraint or burdensome ceremony. 
 The work forbidden was the ordinary avocations that men 
 pursue during the first six days of the week ; but not the 
 healing of disease, or the assuaging of sorrow, or even such 
 acts as the rubbing out ears of corn while passing through the 
 fields. And as the prohibitions of the fourth commandment were 
 directed only against work, it would follow, necessarily, that 
 men may stroll out into the country and enjoy the fresh aspect 
 of nature — may gather fruits and flowers, indulge in cheerful 
 converse, and, in fact, employ the hours in the pursuit of any 
 innocent pleasure. It can be no matter of surprise to any 
 one, that a teacher who practically exemplified these principles 
 should be unable to sustain himself against the assaults of the 
 Pharisees. 
 
 The first parable spoken by Jesus — that of the sower — may 
 be regarded as intended to illustrate his own experience. He 
 had gone forth to sow the seed of the Word, and but a small 
 portion had fallen upon the good ground. Of all who had 
 listened to his teaching, how small the number in whom it 
 had sprung up and multiplied and brought forth fruit ; how 
 great the number of those in whom it had perished, either 
 immediately, or after a longer or shorter period of seeming 
 promise ; how many at once had rejected it with incredulity 
 or disdain ; how many had received it with joy, and had 
 afterwards fallen away, because they could not endure the re- 
 proaches of the ceremonialists, or the contempt of the world; 
 and how many had been drawn away by the occupations and 
 anxieties of business ! We can well imagine the mingled feel- 
 ings of sorrow and indignation with which, under this figure, he 
 depicted to the multitude his own mission and their rejection of 
 him, and with which he turned to the few faithful friends that 
 had adhered to him in spite of opposition and of temptation, 
 and explained to them the lessons which, henceforth, it was use- 
 less to address to the populace. It was, as it were, the apology 
 and justification for the change in his method of teaching, and 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 247 
 
 for his contemplated abandonment of tlie field in whicli he had 
 previously laboured. He had scattered the seed broadcast, 
 without regard to the soil in which it was to fall, and this 
 had been the result ; and now he had to change his sphere of 
 action, and to confine his teaching to those who could under- 
 stand and profit by his instruction. 
 
 There are reasons also for concluding that this experience of 
 the fruitlessness of his labours, so far as concerned the mass 
 of the people, produced some change in the views of Jesus with 
 regard to the coming of the Kingdom. About this time, at least, 
 he is represented as uttering a series of parables, in which the 
 Kingdom of Heaven is successively likened to "the grain of 
 mustard seed;" to "leaven;" to "treasure hid in a field;" to 
 "the pearl of great price;" and to "a net cast into the sea."^ 
 It is not easy, at first sight, to understand the purport of the 
 third and fourth of these, from the point of view of the dis- 
 ciples, to whom they were addressed ; but the object of the 
 first two was, obviously, to console them under the seeming 
 failure of his mission by the assurance that, however small and 
 obscure the beginning might be, the work he had commenced 
 would increase and prosper. The "Word he had preached, though 
 hidden for the moment, would silently and secretly continue to 
 operate until it had permeated the whole society. The seed he 
 had sown, though insignificant in appearance, would, neverthe- 
 less, grow into a goodly tree. These parables are, consequently, 
 consistent with the actual position and subsequent conduct of 
 Jesus, and may be accepted as having been spoken by him at 
 the period in question. It is quite possible, too, that the third 
 and fourth may have had an analogous object, and that as the 
 first two were designed to comfort the Apostles under present 
 failure by the expectation of future success, so these were in- 
 tended to impress upon their minds the conviction that the sure 
 promise of the Kingdom, which they enjoyed, was an abundant 
 
 ^ "We leave out of consideration, for the present, the parable of the good seed and 
 the tares. 
 
248 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 compensation for all the sacrifices which they had already- 
 made, and for the yet greater sacrifices that were about to be 
 demanded of them. The last parable — that of " the net cast 
 into the sea " — teaches, apparently, under another figure, the 
 same lesson as that of the sower ; the small number of those 
 who enter the Kingdom, as compared with those to whom the 
 invitation is addressed, and by whom it is, in the first instance, 
 seemingly accepted. Viewed in relation to the position of 
 Jesus, and his immediately succeeding withdrawal from the 
 district, we may suppose them intended to prepare his disciples 
 for a period of retirement and inaction, during which the 
 lessons which he had taught might be left to produce their 
 efiect without being coimteracted by that deep personal hostil- 
 ity which he had himself provoked. 
 
 In thus attempting to understand the immediate purport of 
 these parables, we do not necessarily strip them of a deeper 
 meaning. They may have been uttered in view of particular 
 events and contingencies, and still be susceptible of a wider, 
 possibly of universal, application. It can, however, scarcely be 
 questioned that they were spoken by Jesus, and imderstood by 
 the apostles, in relation to his and their position at the time. 
 He had been preaching the Kingdom of Heaven throughout 
 the cities of Galilee unsuccessfully, at least so far as outward 
 results were concerned, and he was then on the point of aban- 
 doning the ungrateful task, and, for the time, of relinquish- 
 ing his mission. Of this purpose the apostles could not have 
 been ignorant, and the prospect might well have filled them 
 with despondency. They might not unreasonably fear that the 
 mission had failed altogether ; that no further results were to 
 follow, no fuller harvest to be gathered in ; that, once relin- 
 quished, it would never be resumed. The parable that Jesus 
 had addressed to the people seemingly implied this, for it 
 would appear that the sower had finished his labours, and that 
 all the seed sown in good ground had already yielded its full 
 increase. It was, therefore, only natural that Jesus, if he had 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTOKY. 249 
 
 not himself abandoned all hope of witnessing the fulfilment of 
 his expectation, or if he contemplated a renewal of his eiForts, 
 should utter some words of encouragement to his followers, 
 something that might enable them to understand and to share 
 the hopes he still cherished. To this purpose, then, these parables 
 seem well adapted, and thus understood they are significant and 
 appropriate. Viewed in themselves, and apart from the circum- 
 stances to which they were originally intended to apply, they 
 have, no doubt, a deep meaning for us ; but that meaning would 
 have escaped the apostles, or if perceived, would have brought 
 with it no consolation. What to them, when they were on the 
 point of retii'ing baffled from their enterprise, would have been 
 the prospect that, in latter ages, among unknown peoples, in 
 another form, and with other hopes, the doctrines that Jesus 
 had been teaching should take root and flourish ; what, when 
 they were looking forward to the visible manifestation of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven in the restoration of independence and 
 even supremacy to their nation, that it should work its unob- 
 served way in the individual soul, penetrating and transforming 
 the heart and the Ife. It would have been a mockery at such a 
 moment to have addressed to them consolations of this nature, 
 and of such a mockery, we may be assured, if only from their 
 continued adherence to him, Jesus was incapable. If, therefore, 
 those parables were really spoken by Jesus about this time, they 
 must have borne such a meaning as that which we have attri- 
 buted to them. 
 
 We are apt, in dwelling on the teaching of Jesus, to leave out 
 of sight the obvious fact that what remains to us is only the 
 merest fragments of what he said — just those passages which, as 
 more graphic or pointed, or because they embodied some striking 
 metaphor or parable, or were associated with some salient inci- 
 dent, fixed themselves in the memory of his hearers, and subse- 
 quently became current in the infant society.^ These passages, 
 
 1 Possibly oaly such of these as it was thought needful to reduce to writing for the 
 use of the Church, because they had some bearing upon questions of the day. 
 
250 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 however, we may be certain were employed by Jesus for the 
 purpose of illustrating and enforcing the lessons he was desirous 
 to impart. The parables, for instance, were not mystical utter- 
 ances thrown out to bewilder the apostles, and to edify future 
 believers. They were means adopted by Jesus to assist him in 
 presenting practical lessons in a form at once intelligible and im- 
 pressive. In the period of uncertainty which preceded his deter- 
 mination to seek a refuge beyond the borders of Galilee there 
 must have been numerous occasions on which Jesus would refer 
 to the effects of his preaching, to his purposes, and to his hopes 
 — occasions on which he would comfort the apostles by remind- 
 ing them of what they had secured by attaching themselves to 
 him, and encom-age them by predictions of the ultimate success 
 of his cause ; and, doubtless, many illustrations were then used 
 that have not been preserved to us. But whatever was then 
 said had, we may be assured, at least, a tacit reference to the 
 existing emergency. 
 
 The parable of the good seed and the tares of the field has 
 been passed over, because it appears impossible to suppose 
 that it was spoken by Jesus at this time. It refers to a far 
 later stage of development, of which even the germs did not 
 then exist. It assumes a period when attempts had been made, 
 at least with partial success, to introduce novel opinions and 
 practices into the community, and when the " tares " thus sown 
 were springing up in the midst of the "good seed" that had 
 been sown by Jesus. The lesson it teaches is one of patience 
 and forbearance on the part of the heads of the Church. They 
 are to permit the growth of that which they perceive to be evil, 
 rather than risk the destruction of the good with which it was 
 intermingled, because, in the near termination of the existing 
 order of things, Jesus himself will effect the necessary separation. 
 
 The earliest period to which it can be referred is the visit of 
 Paul to Jerusalem, when Titus was required to be circumcised. 
 It is clear that at this time there was a sharp controversy with 
 regard to the terms of the admission of the Gentiles, and the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 251 
 
 introduction of Titus as a brother while yet uncircumcised must 
 have caused much angry feeling. There must even have been 
 great doubt whether a person who had acted as Paul had done 
 could be allowed to continue in the society, and we may be sure 
 that a few of the more ardent disciples demanded his expulsion.^ 
 This demand would have been, we may believe, resisted by 
 the apostles, who would feel the imprudence of alienating the 
 large mass of Gentile disciples who had been induced to join 
 the society through his preaching. They would themselves 
 resent the conduct of Paul, as, at least, rash and illtimed, 
 though they might consider that the services which he had 
 rendered to the cause ought to be allowed to outweigh a 
 momentary error of this nature. There would, doubtless, 
 be many who considered him as an enemy. And all regarded 
 as erroneous (though possibly inevitable) the practices which 
 he sanctioned, and the doctrines with which they were asso- 
 ciated. They were tares growing in the field of the Church in 
 which the Son of Man had sown none but good seed. This 
 parable may be taken to represent the feelings which induced 
 those who regarded Paul as an enemy, nevertheless to permit 
 him to continue in the society and to pursue his work of 
 teaching. We may imagine such arguments as these to have 
 been addressed by the leading apostles to their more uncompro- 
 mising followers, in order to procure their acquiescence in the 
 course ultimately adopted. And it is very probable that the 
 parable originated at that time, and, therefore, that it formed a 
 part of the first Grospel from the beginning. ^ 
 
 It is not necessary here to refer to the sayings of Jesus after 
 
 1 The scandal that would be occasioned if it were known that the Bishop of Natal 
 had attempted to introduce an unhaptizcd Zulu to " the holy sacrifice of the Eucha- 
 rist" may afford a faint image of the scandal created in Jerusalem when it was known 
 that Titus was not circumcised. And Paul was a sort of Colenso in his day, though 
 his neology took a different direction. 
 
 ' The essential idea of the parable is that expressed in the famous sajing of Dominic : 
 "God will know his own;" but the practical lesson deduced was opposite in the 
 two cases. The Inquisitor made it a ground for killing, and the apostles for saving 
 all. 
 
252 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 his withdrawal to Nazareth. They do not teach any new lessons. 
 There is still the same question with regard to the neglect of cere- 
 monial observances ; and the results are the same. He retorts 
 the accusations of the Pharisees by accusing them of violating 
 the spirit while professing to obey the letter of the law ; and, 
 after an ineffectual appeal to the multitude, he quits Galilee. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE MESSIAH. 
 
 According to the view which, we have taken of the life of 
 Jesus, his departure from Galilee to the coasts of Tyre and 
 Sidon marks the termination of the first period of his ministry. 
 He had traversed the various stages through which so many 
 reformers have had to pass — popularity, doubt, indifierence, 
 and hostility ; and had recognized that, whatever might be 
 his success in another sphere, he had nothing further to 
 hope in the region of his first essay. His retreat appears 
 to have been finally decided by a fear lest Herod, who had 
 already cut short the career of John the Baptist, should 
 seize him also; and, accordingly, accompanied by his dis- 
 ciples, he removed beyond the sphere of his government. How 
 long he remained in that region is uncertain. The only incident 
 related is the healing of the daughter of a woman of the country, 
 moved by her persistent prayer against his declared and, 
 apparently, actual intention to the contrary. "While here, 
 however, his views of his own character and mission appear to 
 have been developed ; and it would seem that those of his dis- 
 ciples also had undergone a corresponding change. At least, it 
 is in " The Coast of Csesarea Philippi," beyond the sphere of his 
 original teaching, and near to Tyre, that the first open recogni- 
 tion of his being himself the Messiah takes place, and the manner 
 in which he is reported to have received the acknowledgment 
 shews how far even his disciples had previously been from enter- 
 
254 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 taining such an opinion, and how deep was the impression it 
 made upon Jesus himself. 
 
 It would, indeed, appear that the retreat into Phenicia bore 
 the same relation to the second period in the life of Jesus that 
 the retirement into the wilderness bore to the first, and that as 
 the latter matured his purpose to become the preacher of the 
 Kingdom — so the former developed and fixed the conviction 
 that he was himself the Messiah, and enabled him to ripen his 
 plans for asserting his claim to that character. The trial which 
 he had already made must have convinced him that any further 
 efibrts in Galilee would be useless. He had preached in all its 
 cities and villages, and excepting as regards the few disciples 
 who had accompanied him into exile, and the still fewer who 
 might secretly cherish an attachment which they were afraid to 
 display, without any efiect. He had been compelled to retreat 
 before the threats of the Pharisees, and, finally, to leave the 
 country to escape the dangers which menaced him from the sus- 
 picious attention of Herod ; but no manifestation of popular 
 sympathy or support had been called forth. It is true that he is 
 described in the first Gospel as still followed by multitudes ; but, 
 if so, they could only be the idle and the curious, upon whom no 
 permanent impression could be made, and from whom no reliable 
 assistance could be hoped. If, therefore, anything was to be 
 done, the attempt would have to be made in another quarter, 
 and, possibly, with other means, or in another character. 
 
 Our general conclusions in this respect would not be sensibly 
 modified if we were to suppose, with the writer of the first 
 Gospel, that Jesus, after his retreat to Phenicia, had returned to 
 Galilee for the purpose of making another attempt there, and 
 had then, for some undisclosed reason, visited Caesarea Philippi. 
 But there is great difficulty attending such a supposition. As has 
 been often pointed out, every thing described as occurring in this 
 assumed intermediate visit is in substance a repetition of some- 
 thing before related, and bears the appearance of being another 
 version of the same transactions, with such differences of detail, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 255 
 
 however, as to lead a not very critical compiler to suppose that 
 different events were referred to. It is not, perhaps, incredible 
 that the same miracle, of multiplying food for the purpose of 
 feeding the crowds that had collected, should be repeated ; and 
 there is certainly no greater physical improbability in its being 
 performed twice than once. Even, from the supernatural point 
 of view, it seems to lower the character of such a miracle, 
 or of any miracle, when it is made the means of saving, 
 presumably, the same people twice from the consequences of 
 a similar act of improvidence. It becomes, then, not so much 
 an evidential work — a sign accrediting the performer^ — as a 
 recognized means of supply upon which the multitude might 
 depend as they could ujDon a bounteous host, whose house con- 
 tained all the necessary provisions. In both cases, too, Jesus 
 himself sends away the multitude ; in both it appears that it is 
 necessary to take ship immediately afterwards ; and in both the 
 Pharisees are represented as coming to Jesus almost immediately 
 on his landing, and though their object is different on the two 
 occasions, yet their demand and his reply on the second occasion 
 are substantially the same as a previous demand and reply re- 
 lated at an earlier period in the same Gospel. 
 
 These duplicates of act and speech are scarcely probable. It 
 is more easy to suppose, either that the compiler of the Gospel 
 inserted two different accounts of the same event that he found 
 in the written or traditional sources from which he drew, or that 
 the account should be subsequently interpolated,^ than that Jesus 
 
 1 Father Newman appears disposed to give up mu-acles as evidences of doctrine, 
 and rather to regard them as rewards graciously vouchsafed to eminent faith. This 
 may be the case ; excepting with regard to the Gospel miracles, the spectators of 
 which were incredulous. If it is so, however, it would seem to follow that the 
 more unintelligent and unreasoning the votary the higher and more profuse are the 
 rewards offered. It may be doubted whether Father Newman is not too intelligent 
 to have his faith thus rewarded. 
 
 2 A strong reason for believing the entire passage to be a subsequent interpolation 
 is furnished by the representation (Matt. xvi. 1), that the "Pharisees, also, with 
 the Sadducees" came to tempt him. The writer of the first Gospel knew too well 
 the antagonism between these parties to have represented them as acting together on 
 this occasion. 
 
256 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 should have so repeated himself. And it is observable that the 
 Gospel does not suggest any motive for the return into Galilee 
 at this period, nor for the subsequent visit to Caesarea Philippi. 
 It can hardly be supposed that Jesus returned with the intention 
 of resuming his teaching, but was deterred by finding that he 
 had again to encounter the incredidity and opposition of the 
 Pharisees. This would argue a want of foresight or of courage 
 on his part ; of foresight in not anticipating the continued hos- 
 tility of his former opponents, or of courage in not confronting 
 what he had foreseen. Nor will it be said that he came once 
 more to contrive an occasion for the display of his supernatural 
 power, by first attracting the multitude into the desert, and then 
 keeping them there till they began to suffer from the want of 
 food. This, apart from the stupendous character of the alleged 
 miracle, is inconsistent with the character Jesus assumed to- 
 wards the people, which was that of a preacher of the Kingdom, 
 and not a mere worker of miracles. It would exhibit him, too, 
 in the undignified position of creating the occasion for repeating 
 a miracle which neither in the former instance nor in this pro- 
 duced any effect upon the multitude or upon his disciples. And 
 even if this were admitted as a sufficient reason for the return 
 to Galilee, it would still leave the subsequent journey to 
 Ceesarea Philippi unaccounted for. A fuller examination, there- 
 fore, appears to establish the conclusion that this alleged visit 
 to the borders of the lake, between the occasion of the retreat 
 of Jesus to Phenicia and his appearance in the neighbourhood 
 of Caesarea Philippi, is unauthentic, and is due to some error on 
 the part of the original compiler, or to some subsequent in- 
 terpolation. 
 
 But if any one should persist in considering that Jesus 
 did return into Galilee for the purpose of making one more 
 attempt to win over the hearts of his own people, by aj)peals 
 to their appetite for the marvellous, it cannot be denied that this 
 renewed effort awakened no satisfactory response, and that he 
 then withdrew to another place of retreat in which he might 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 257 
 
 safely deliberate as to his ulterior proceedings. Altliougb, 
 therefore, we are tmable to accept this assumed visit as cor- 
 responding to any real event, yet even if it did so, it would only 
 throw back for a short space the time at which Jesus found 
 himself placed in the position of having to choose between the 
 abandonment of his mission and its resumption in a new field. 
 
 TVTien once this necessity was realized, the questions it 
 suggested must have been fall of anxiety and difficulty, both 
 as regarded the place for any renewed attempt and the character 
 in which it was to be made. It was true that his mission had 
 failed in Galilee, but this might be owing to the character of 
 the people ; or it might be that he had, after all, selected the 
 wrong place for his experiment, ^Vhat if now he were to 
 proceed to Jerusalem itself — the destined seat of the coming 
 Kingdom ; " the city of the great king " — and make that the 
 theatre of his next efibrt ! It was in that city that the Messiah 
 was to appear and reign — from thence his Kingdom was to 
 spread. What place, therefore, could be more appropriate for 
 his purpose ? But then, if Jerusalem was to be the scene of 
 his ministry, in what character was he to present himself? 
 John had already preached the Gospel of the Kingdom in 
 Judsea, and had taught the doctrine of repentance for remis- 
 sion of sins. He had there, in fact, fiUed the place Jesus had 
 subsequently occupied in Galilee. He had produced a profound 
 and permanent impression upon the people, and had left a re- 
 cognized body of disciples. Was Jesus to take up his mission 
 from the point at which John had left it ? If he did so, what 
 probability was there that the disciples of John would accept 
 him as the successor of their master ; and if not, upon what 
 grounds was he to draw a distinction between his own teaching 
 and that of John, so as to entitle himself to a hearing. These 
 were considerations that could scarcely fail to have presented 
 themselves to Jesus when contemplating the renewal of his 
 mission and its transfer to some other sphere, for these were 
 the actual difficulties he would have to encounter. There was, 
 
 17 
 
258 THE JESUS or history. 
 
 however, anotlier course open to him — one that would relieve him 
 from those embarassments, though only, it miglit be, to meet 
 other and greater ; — that he should himself appear in Jerusalem 
 as the Messiah, the coming one whose advent John had an- 
 nounced. And this was the course upon which he ultimately 
 decided. 
 
 By what process he had convinced himself, and by what 
 means he succeeded in impressing the conviction upon his 
 disciples, that he, who had at first claimed to be only the 
 herald of the Kingdom, was himself its king, must always 
 remain a mystery. We cannot even rely upon the data of 
 the first Gospel, for they are confused and contradictory. It 
 would, for instance, appear that at a comparatively early 
 period, in Galilee, he had declared John to be the Elias, and 
 therefore, by implication, to have claimed to be himself the 
 Messiah. And yet, at a much later time, when he is re- 
 presented as having, for a moment, appeared to his more 
 favoured disciples clothed with the glory that was to belong to 
 him when he should be revealed in the clouds of heaven, they are 
 described as doubting whether he could possibly be the Messiah, 
 since Elias had not come. And they are then told, apart from 
 the others, and as a new truth not yet disclosed to any one, that 
 John was he. So, from time to time, Jesus is described as 
 making claims that can only be understood to imply that 
 he is the Messiah, and as doing acts that call forth from 
 his disciples a worshipping recognition that he is the Son of 
 God, while at the same time he takes no step to assert his 
 dignity, and receives the declaration of Peter as though 
 it had been so unwarranted by anything which he or others 
 had said that it would only be due to the direct inspiration 
 of God.^ In this uncertainty all we can do is to accept the 
 account in the first Gospel, so far as it is consistent with 
 
 ' If those who were in the ship when Jesus allayed the tempest came and wor- 
 shipped him and acknowlcdf^cd him to be the Son of God, Matt. xiv. 33, what was 
 there novel or surprising in the speech of Peter ? 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 259 
 
 and tends to explain the conduct of Jesns. And hence 
 Ave conchide that whatever half-formed beliefs might have 
 arisen in his own. mind, or in those of his disciples, while 
 teaching in Galilee, it was while residing in exile, recalling 
 the experience of the past and meditating the prospects of the 
 future, that this conviction acquired consistency and strength ; 
 and that there was some special occasion when it found em- 
 phatic expression in the mouth of Peter, and was accepted 
 by Jesus as a revelation from God. This, at least, appears 
 clearly to result from a comparison of the different portions of 
 the first Gospel, that Jesus left Galilee as the preacher of the 
 Kingdom, and that he returned to it prepared to proceed at 
 once to Jerusalem, and there publicly to assume the character 
 of the Messiah. 
 
 It would further appear that, in deciding upon this course, 
 he foresaw and predicted to his disciples the probability of 
 failure and of death, and, nevertheless, announced his de- 
 termination to brave these consequences rather than shrink 
 from the career which he had marked out to himself ; and that 
 this determination was forced upon him by circumstances there 
 is every reason to believe ; as also, perhaps, that when he an- 
 nounced to his immediate followers his intention of proceeding 
 to action, he, at the same time, assured them that his prospects 
 of success would be greater by carrying out his plans at once, 
 whilst the adoption of a different course would, probably, only 
 result in interruption and delay. And it may well be doubted 
 whether, if Jesus on this occasion had really foretold his re- 
 surrection in the precise language of the first Gospel, the 
 prospect of this result would not have overpowered, in the 
 mind of Peter, the repugnance excited by the first part of 
 the prediction. 
 
 We may fairly believe that some such scene actually occurred, 
 for the phraseology of the rebuke stated to be addressed to Peter 
 appears to indicate the reminiscence of a real saying of Jesus, 
 and would hardly have been related had it not been too firmly 
 
260 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 embedded in the tradition of the day to be omitted. And brief 
 phrases like the previous commendation, and this quickly suc- 
 ceeding censure, are just the things which the memory does, in 
 general, preserve. That Jesus, in looking forward to his intended 
 enterprise, should have contemplated the possibility of failure, 
 and his own death as the penalty, can excite no svirprise. He 
 had already been compelled to retire, unsuccessful, from his first 
 attempt, made in a place selected by himself from his own pre- 
 vious knowledge, and his failure with the populace appears to 
 have in a great degree, resulted from the opposition of the 
 Doctors of the law and the Pharisees. The people, it is true, 
 had at first heard him gladly, but their attachment to him had 
 not been sufficiently strong to overcome the ties of habit. They 
 had fallen away when they found that no immediate results 
 followed his announcement, and that their recognized guides, 
 the men to whom they had been accustomed to defer, regarded 
 him as a deceiver or as heterodox. In Judsea, and, above 
 all, in Jerusalem, he would be going into the very centre of 
 the power of those who, on the outskirts of Judaism, had been 
 too strong for him, and with no other support than that of 
 the multitude, whose instability he had already proved ; 
 In Galilee he had been able to withdraw himself when his 
 proceedings had excited the jealousy of the government ; but 
 in Jerusalem such withdrawal might be impossible. There 
 was, consequently, ground enough for gloomy foreboding. 
 
 And yet, if he was that which his own conviction and the 
 •opinion of his disciples, speaking by the mouth of Peter, had 
 recognized him to be — the Messiah ; the Son of God ; the 
 destined instrument of founding the Kingdom of Heaven, — it 
 was only in Jerusalem that his claim could be tested and his 
 task accomplished. To visit Jerusalem, consequently, was the 
 necessary pre-requisite of success, though it might be only the 
 precursor of failure. And he may have had disciples there 
 from whom he had learned that the time was ripe for such 
 an enterprise — that the people were " waiting for the con- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 261 
 
 solation of Israel," — and, perhaps, the report of his teaching 
 and works which had reached Judaea had excited a feeling 
 of expectation, and a predisposition to recognize him as the 
 Christ, of which it was well that he should avail himself. It 
 is, in fact, difl&cult not to suppose this. The first Gospel states 
 that among those who were attracted by his early preaching 
 were some from Jerusalem and from Judsea beyond Jordan, and 
 all probabilities favour the accuracy of this statement. In that 
 case it might naturally be expected that some of these might 
 have become his disciples, though they did not leave their 
 business and their families to follow him. And, if so, at least 
 an occasional intercourse would have been maintained between 
 Jesus himself, or his more immediate followers, and these dis" 
 ciples, and each would be made acquainted with any movement 
 or sentiment that might affect the common cause. 
 
 This is, no doubt, conjectural, but the conjecture rests upon 
 grounds derived from the Gospel itself, and receives strong 
 indirect confirmation from subsequent events. Unless Jesus 
 had possessed friends and disciples in Judaea it is difficult to 
 understand how he could have met with the welcome and the 
 shelter that he found there from the first, or how he could 
 have been able to attract the multitudes who hailed him as 
 their expected king. It may be said that this is accounted for 
 by the previous visits which he had paid to Jerusalem, and 
 especially by the raising of Lazarus, as detailed in the fourth 
 Gospel. And if we could accept that Gospel as historical, 
 this explanation might be accepted, though not without rais- 
 ing other and greater difficulties. The reception of Jesus is 
 accounted for more simply and naturally by supposing that 
 visitors from Jerusalem had attached themselves to him in 
 Galilee, and that the tie thus formed had never been severed. 
 
 Any conclusion which we may form with regard to the 
 motives that influenced the conduct of Jesus upon this oc- 
 casion can be only hypothetical, for our sole authority is silent 
 on the subject. We might, no doubt, abstain from all con- 
 
262 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 jecture, but this is not required of us so long as our conjectures 
 are based upon the history and are warranted by analogy. We 
 do not, indeed, pretend to understand or account for the process 
 by which Jesus was induced to believe that he was the Messiah ; 
 but our difficulty in this respect is diminished by our knowledge 
 that many others about this time, or subsequently, entertained 
 the same conviction with regard to themselves. Finding, how- 
 ever, as is clearly shown by the subsequent history, that Jesus 
 did entertain this conviction, his determination to visit Jeru- 
 salem in spite of the fears of a fatal termination to his enter- 
 prise which he could not but entertain, appears to be accounted 
 for principally by the circumstance that Jerusalem was to be 
 the seat of the Kingdom, and that there only could his pre- 
 tensions be put to the proof, but partly also by the circumstance 
 that he had disciples there from whom he might expect assist- 
 ance, and from whom, probably, he had received assurances of 
 popular welcome and support. 
 
 As soon as his decision was formed Jesus appears to have 
 returned to Galilee in order to prepare for his intended journey, 
 and after a brief stay, during which he does not seem to have 
 appeared in public, to have departed for Jerusalem. His route, 
 so far as we can judge, lay along the east bank of the Jordan, 
 avoiding Samaria. It would, indeed, have been inconsistent with 
 the character which he had assumed, and would have seriously 
 affected his prospects of success, if he had arrived in Judea as 
 the friend and guest of the Samaritans. He was accompanied 
 by the apostles and by some women, one of whom, the wife of 
 Zebedee, appears during the course of the journey, and two 
 others, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and 
 Joses,^ are subsequently mentioned as being present at the 
 
 1 Is it possible that this could have been the mother of Jesus ? There seems a great 
 improbability that in that case the other less honorable title should be given to her ; 
 and yet, perhaps, this is not so improbable as that there should have been two Marys, 
 each the mother of a James and a Joses, and that the mother of Jesus should not have 
 accompanied him, though her son James was presunuibly one of the party. Can Joses 
 be a corruption for Jesus ? The whole subject of the kindred of Jesus is, however, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 2G3 
 
 crucifixion. No other persons are named, and we are left to 
 conjecture if any others were in the company. Probably there 
 were many whom the writer has not mentioned, either because 
 they were not brought into the same intimate relation with 
 Jesus as the apostles, or because none of them subsequently 
 attained such a position in the infant Church that tradition 
 had preserved their memory. 
 
 We should infer that the people had been prepared to expect 
 the coming of Jesus, for they are described as flocking to him 
 at once ; it would ajDpear, too, that the party of the Pharisees 
 had received a similar intimation, for their emissaries met him 
 almost as soon as he entered the country. This, at least, was no 
 more than might have been expected. The purpose of Jesus to 
 journey to Jerusalem could not have been kept as a secret ; possi- 
 bly, even, it had been publicly announced. The men, therefore, 
 who had successfully opposed him in Galilee were not likely to 
 leave their brethren in Judea uninformed on the subject. In 
 Galilee the Pharisees had been at first neutral, and only after 
 his public denunciation of themselves and of their teaching 
 appear in the character of foes. In Judea they are the as- 
 sailants ; they encounter him at the earliest opportunity and 
 continue their attacks until they apparently succeed in reduc- 
 ing him to silence. In fact, the greater part of his teaching 
 in Judea is represented as drawn from him by their insidious 
 questions or open assaults, so that, at last, wearied out by 
 their unceasing antagonism, Jesus bursts out into a strain of 
 invective against them, which closes his public utterances, and 
 immediately precedes the negotiations for his betrayal. 
 
 In all this there is nothing more than Jesus is related 
 to have foreseen and even predicted; nothing more, indeed, 
 
 involved in difficulty. The uncertainty in which the subject is left, the circum- 
 stance that the mother of Jesus is either mentioned by this appellation, or not 
 mentioned at all in the earliest Gospel as having been present at the crucifixion (nor 
 indeed on any other occasion in the public life of Jesu5, excepting the one in which 
 she is apparently rejected), show conclusively the slight importance attached to her at 
 that time. 
 
264 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 than any observer of common sagacity might have antici- 
 pated. It must always remain uncertain whether he regarded 
 failure as inevitable, or how far his apprehensions were over- 
 powered by his hopes. Probably the two feelings alternated as 
 he contemplated the one aspect of his position or the other : the 
 hostility which he must encounter, and the support he might ex- 
 pect. It is not impossible that the whole enterprise was the result 
 of a hope born in extremity. On the one side was an old age 
 spent in exile, a pensioner on the bounty of Gentile strangers, 
 or as the alternative an obscure and inglorious existence in 
 Galilee, purchased at the price of submission to his enemies and 
 abnegation of his principles ; on the other an attempt, desperate, 
 no doubt, and uncertain at the best, but having at least the 
 chances of a glorious success, and in which even failure would be 
 preferable to that ignoble termination of his career which he must 
 otherwise accept. Out of the very desperation excited by his posi- 
 tion might spring not merely the resolution to dare all, but also a 
 confidence that he should succeed. Such a confidence, however, 
 could not be permanently maintained. There must have been 
 alternations of feeling both in himself and his followers ; gloomy 
 forebodings on his part, on theirs a reluctance to face what 
 seemed the inevitable issue, and attempts to dissuade him from 
 his project. Then, again, visions of the realization of their 
 hopes in the speedy establishment of the Kingdom — promises 
 that the twelve should sit on thrones as judges of the twelve 
 Tribes of Israel, and that all who had made any sacrifices for 
 his sake should be abundantly compensated even in that which 
 they had sacrificed, — and disputes for precedence in the antici- 
 pated dignities among the twelve themselves. 
 
 It is not easy to imagine what were the expectations of Jesus 
 in the event of success ; in what manner he anticipated the es- 
 tablishment of the kingdom, or what was to be its precise cha- 
 racter. There is an apparent inconsistency in the words at- 
 tributed to him upon the subject. There are the promises cited 
 above, besides that referring to the new wine to be drimk in the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 265 
 
 kingdom, whicli necessarily implied to those wlio heard them 
 the foundation of an earthly dominion, and the enjoyment of 
 physical pleasures ; and there are other sayings which may be re- 
 garded as impl}dng that the kingdom was to be spiritual, so that 
 it is impossible to rely upon the completeness or accuracy of our 
 materials. There are few portions of the sayings of Jesus more 
 exposed to unconscious or intentional alterations than those in 
 which he spoke of the consequences of his assumption of the 
 character of the Messiah. And here, also, it is certain that we 
 possess only an insignificant fragment of his conversation on the 
 subject. It is, in fact, only necessary to realize for a moment 
 the actual position of Jesus and of the apostles to be assured that 
 such is the case. 
 
 "When he formed the purpose to return to his own land, and 
 to proceed to Jerusalem, Jesus and his apostles were together on 
 the outskirts of Galilee. Can it be supposed that in the in- 
 timacy of the relations that subsisted between them, exiles as 
 they had been for a common cause and alone at a distance from 
 their homes, that their future course was not a subject of daily 
 meditation and even of daily converse ? Not Jesus only, but 
 every one of those who had followed him, must have been occu- 
 pied with much that related to the resumption or renunciation 
 of his mission ; must, in imagination, have attempted to picture 
 the consequences of either line of action, and his followers at least 
 must have frequently discussed these questions among themselves . 
 and living together as they did, the result of these discussions 
 must also have been well known to Jesus, even if he did not take 
 part in them, for this was a question in the decision of which 
 each one of the little band had a direct personal stake, apart 
 from the general interest that he might feel in the success of 
 the cause — should he remain an exile, or return to his home 
 and to the occupation he had quitted at the call of the Master ; 
 or was another attempt to be made in a new sphere, the success 
 of which might compensate for their first failure. Such con- 
 siderations, in one form or another, must have been almost 
 
266 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 constantly present to the minds of tlie disciples, and under 
 any view of the character of Jesus he could not but have sym- 
 pathized with them, and have occasionally, if not habituallj", 
 referred to those topics for the purpose of instruction or en- 
 couragement. 
 
 During the journey, also, from Galilee to Jerusalem, which 
 must have occupied some days, and was marked by the en- 
 thusiasm of the crowd and the attacks of the Pharisees, there 
 must surely have been frequent references to the same subject ; 
 and when the popular favour, that greeted his arrival, enabled 
 him to make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and awed the 
 Pharisaic and sacerdotal parties into a momentary submission' 
 so that he could perform his work of cleansing the courts of the 
 temple, retiring, perhaps, at night to the abode of some humble 
 follower — can it be supposed that nothing was said by himself 
 or his discijDles either of gratulation at the success of his pro- 
 ceedings up to that point, or of disappointment, that in spite of 
 everything the establishment of the kingdom appeared as far 
 off as ever ? And, so, as time wore on, and the public enthu- 
 siasm cooled, the hostility between Jesus and the authorities 
 became more embittered, the end of the struggle ai^proached, 
 and obviously nothing was to be hoped from the multi- 
 tude ; besides, no supernatural aid was vouchsafed, and the 
 failure of the enterprise appeared inevitable. When day after 
 day he visited Jerusalem, and night after night retired to some 
 secret asylum, was there no speech on his part to rouse the 
 flagging energies of his disciples in moments of despondency — 
 to point out the prospects of success, or to strengthen them 
 under the anticipation of defeat ? Surely this cannot be sug- 
 gested, nor yet that his sayings then made so little impres- 
 sion upon his disciples that they were forgotten, or were 
 of so little interest as not to be worth reproducing. The only 
 reasonable inference is that they were, for the most part, either 
 contradicted by the event, or were found to be incompatible with 
 the altered position and hopes of the disciples, and, therefore. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 267 
 
 were not dwelt upon, and gradually dropped out of the re- 
 ceived tradition. And this suggests the further inference 
 that the reports which have reached us have been considerably 
 modified in the course of transmission. 
 
 On four occasions only Jesus is reported to have referred to 
 the consequences of his journey to Jerusalem. At Caesarea 
 Philippi, where Peter first recognizes him as the Messiah ; 
 during his brief stay in Galilee before its commencement ; on 
 the journey itself, presumably at Jericho ; and after his arrival 
 at Jerusalem, immediately before the anointing, at the house 
 of Simon the leper. ^ On three of these occasions he is repre- 
 sented as distinctly and emphatically predicting his resurrection 
 from the dead on the third day. It is, however, difiicult to 
 believe that such a prediction was in fact made, though we are 
 not, perhaps, entitled peremptorily to reject it. The idea of 
 the resurrection was familiar to the Jews. Most of them be- 
 lieved that at the coming of the Messiah all Jews, or, at least, 
 all who had observed the law, would rise in the body to reign 
 with him. There was, consequently, nothing incredible, perhaps 
 nothing improbable, in the idea that the Messiah himself should 
 be so raised. As, then, Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah, 
 he might well believe that, even if put to death, his enterprise 
 would not, on that account, necessarily fail, but that he wotdd 
 be raised from the dead to complete it. It is, indeed, not easy 
 to reconcile the repeated utterance of a prophecy so precise, the 
 accuracy of which, in all its earlier details, was demonstrated 
 
 1 Matt, xvi., 21, " From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, 
 how that he must go up unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief 
 Priests and Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day ; " xvii., 22, 23, 
 " And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said imto them, the Son of man shall be 
 betrayed into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be 
 raised again;" xx., 17, 18, 19, "And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve 
 disciples apart in the way, and said unto them. Behold, we go up imto Jerusalem ; and 
 the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of the Chief Priests and unto the 
 Scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles 
 to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify, and the thud day he shall rise again;" 
 ixvi., 2, "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of 
 man is betrayed to be crucified." 
 
268 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 by the event, with the terror and dispersion of the Apostles 
 when the predicted blow was struck, and Jesus was betrayed 
 and arrested. And yet it may be fairly suggested that the 
 treachery of one of their own body, the actual seizure of their 
 master by an armed party, the defection of the multitude, and 
 the intervention of the Roman government, might, for the 
 moment, produce a feeling of terror stronger than their faith, 
 and might lead them to seek safety in flight, without our 
 being, on that account, justified in supposing that they had 
 never heard and believed such a prophecy. And it may be 
 further urged that the readiness with which they are repre- 
 sented in the first Gospel as receiving the news of the resur- 
 rection, and their departure for Galilee immediately after 
 hearing from the two Marys that Jesus had risen and ap- 
 peared to them, and had directed them to repair thither for 
 the purpose of meeting him, is only explicable on the ground 
 that such a prediction had really been made. And, besides, 
 there is not, in the first Gospel, anything inconsistent with 
 this, since there is no reference even to any preparation for 
 anointing the body ; and the visit of the two women may fairly 
 be referred to their anxiety to witness, themselves, the actual 
 rising of Jesus from the tomb in which they had seen him laid. 
 This reasoning does not, it is true, remove all the difficulties 
 suggested by the conduct of the Apostles, but it undoubtedly 
 shews that the first Gospel possesses a consistency, in this 
 respect, that does not belong to the last two, which relate the 
 prediction, but represent the Apostles, after the crucifixion, 
 as refusing to believe the report of the resurrection upon mere 
 testimony and without sensible demonstration. Still, this 
 kind of consistency is so often found in narratives, avowedly 
 fictitious, that it cannot, by itself, be relied upon as an evidence 
 of the truth of the story in which it is found. At the most, it 
 proves that the account is free from any ground of objection. 
 And, on the whole, though it is not incredible — perhaps not in 
 any very high degree improbable — that Jesus might sometimes 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 269 
 
 have so spoken as if he really expected his own resurrection, yet 
 the evidence we have is not, perhaps, sufficient to shew that he ac- 
 tually did so. There were abundant inducements, after the event 
 had demonstrated the fallaciousness of the expectation of imme- 
 diate triumph, for those who still retained their faith in Jesus 
 because of their belief in his resurrection, to suppose that he 
 must have, and, therefore, in fact had, foreseen the precise 
 termination of his enterprise ; and this, again, would inevit- 
 ably lead to the belief that he had foretold everything in 
 express terms. And the conduct of Jesus, though consistent 
 with the fear of failure, appears rather to indicate an ex- 
 pectation of success, — still hardly compatible with the definite 
 and unqualified predictions attributed to him. 
 
 After his arrival in Judaea, Jesus appears only to have de- 
 layed his entry into Jerusalem until the necessary preparations 
 were completed to enable him to make it in accordance with 
 what was expected 'of the Messiah. When this had been done, 
 he mounted the ass prepared for him, and in that guise entered 
 the holy city, surrounded by his disciples, and by numbers who 
 had joined the party during the journey, and welcomed by the 
 glad plaudits of the crowd. Probably no act of his life shews 
 more clearly the essentially Jewish character of his mission, as 
 conceived of by himself, than this public entry in the manner 
 described. For, without raising the question whether the 
 prophecy of Zechariah is to be understood solely in its literal 
 sense, or whether it is, properly, susceptible of a double mean- 
 ing, there can be no doubt that by every one of those who 
 accompanied Jesus, and whose acclamations heralded his en- 
 trance, it was understood as applying to a Messiah who was 
 to be the literal king of Jerusalem, or the capital of the king- 
 dom of Judah ; who was to unite all Israel under his sceptre, 
 to strengthen the house of Judah and save the house of Israel, 
 and to bring all their scattered descendants to the land of 
 Gilead and Lebanon.^ By his assumption of this character, 
 
 ^ Zecli. ix., 9, et scq. ; x., 6, et seq. 
 
270 THE JESUS 0¥ HISTORY. 
 
 conseqiientl}'', Jesus held himself out to all — friendly, hostile, 
 or indifferent — as the predicted monarch by whom these results 
 were to be accomplished ; and to the eyes of all (for we can- 
 not here except the Apostles) made his claims to their accept- 
 ance contingent upon his realization of these prophecies. As 
 king of Jerusalem, then about to inaugurate the visible King- 
 dom of Heaven in the city of David, he claimed the support 
 of his adherents and challenged the opposition of his foes. 
 
 It is, no doubt, difficult for us fully to realize this. We have 
 not merely seen what his contemporaries saw — that the King- 
 dom was not then restored to Israel — but we have seen the whole 
 Jewish people, as such, excluded from the spiritual Kingdom 
 established in the name of Jesus as the Christ ; the majority 
 as unbelievers, the minority, who at first believed, as heretics, 
 and their places supplied by Grentiles who were only brought 
 in by the prophet as accessories to his picture. We, therefore, 
 unconsciously strip the scene of its real meaning, and look upon 
 it as a mere symbolical fulfilment — something that brought 
 Jesus within the terms of the prophecy — and that ought, 
 among other things, to have convinced the Jews that he was, in 
 truth, the Messiah which their own Scriptures had foretold. 
 But this only shews our entire misconception on the subject, for 
 such was really the belief of the multitude. It was because 
 of this belief that they surrounded and welcomed him. And 
 if they afterwards fell away from him whom they had, on 
 this occasion, hailed as the Son of David and King of the 
 Jews, it was because, while thus embodying scenically the 
 formal marks by which the promised king was to be distin- 
 guished, he did not, in fact, realize any one of the essential 
 features of his reign. It is only necessary to turn to the 
 chapters of Zechariah that contain the prediction which Jesus 
 is represented as thus assuming to fulfil, and to remember 
 in what sense it was then necessarily understood, in order, 
 we will not say to justify, but certainly to render intelligible 
 the conduct of the Jews who, on one day, surrounded him 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 271 
 
 with admiring plaudits, and a few days afterwards contemptu- 
 ously rejected him in favour of the Son of Abbas, who had, 
 at least, put his pretensions to the test of the sword. No 
 doubt we, looking back calmly on the whole scene (if any of 
 us, with our early prepossessions, can really be calm and im- 
 partial in any judgment we pronounce upon it), can see the 
 superiority of one who relied upon the intrinsic claims of 
 truth and virtue to secure the favour of men and the help of 
 God, over one who attempted to snatch a transient victory at 
 the cost of bloodshed and suffering. But we have no richt to 
 expect such a judgment from men trained as the Jews were. 
 And still less have we a right to condemn them for their re- 
 jection of Jesus as their king. They had been taught by their 
 Scriptures to regard success as one test of truth ; to suppose 
 that whoever failed in his enterprise, by that very failure 
 afforded reasons to believe that God was not with him. And 
 especially would this be the case with regard to their expected 
 deliverer. He, as the Messiah, was to be the visible repre- 
 sentative of Jehovah ; to establish His Kingdom ; to be glorious 
 with His glory, and strong with His strength. When, con- 
 sequently, Jesus, who had assumed this character, was found 
 merely arguing and teaching, without furnishing any super- 
 natural attestation of his mission, and when, betrayed by one 
 of his disciples, was seized, condemned, and crucified, what 
 wonder that the very men who had welcomed his arrival, be- 
 cause they believed he was, in fact, what he had claimed to 
 be, should have rejected him before Pilate and derided him 
 upon the cross ! This, however, anticipates the narrative, and 
 carries us beyond our immediate object, which is simply to 
 call attention to the emphatically Jewish character in which 
 Jesus presented himself on the occasion of his public entry 
 into Jerusalem. 
 
 At the head of his disciples, and accompanied by the crowd, 
 Jesus proceeded to the Temple. There, his first act was to 
 drive out the dealers who frequented its courts for the purpose 
 
272 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 of supplying to worsliippers from a distance tlie animals re- 
 quired for sacrifice, and the money-changers who were ready 
 to facilitate the purchase by exchanging provincial for current 
 coin. In the first flush of triumph this was, perhaps, not a 
 difficult task. Many pious Jews must have been scandalized 
 by the spectacle of eager and unscrupulous trafficking in the 
 very precincts of the holy place, and the multitude that fol- 
 lowed him would be prepared to support a measure which they 
 regarded merely as anticipating that restoration of a purer and 
 more perfect worship in the Temple which the Messiah was to 
 inaugurate. It does not appear that any resistance was at- 
 tempted ; and if some of the Pharisees who watched the pro- 
 ceeding intimated their surprise or displeasure, this was, ap- 
 parently, a mere passing objection, silenced for the moment 
 by his peremptory answer. Nothing appears to have occurred 
 during the day to interfere with the success of Jesus. But 
 no results followed. He entered Jerusalem as the Messiah ; 
 in that character he proceeded to cast out the traffickers from 
 the courts of the Temple ; he silenced gainsay ers ; and then 
 he retired with his disciples to Bethany, where, apparently, 
 some of his adherents resided. 
 
 We have no information to guide us, and therefore can onlj^ 
 conjecture the feelings with which Jesus sought his temporary 
 home upon this occasion. He may have expected more than really 
 occurred, and yet have been satisfied with the impression he 
 had produced ; or he may have felt that the uneventful termi- 
 nation of a day that had begun so auspiciously was a serious dis- 
 couragement to the hopes which he had cherished. There is an 
 incident recorded on the following day — his curse of the barren 
 fig-tree — which may_, perhaps, be taken to indicate something of 
 disappointment and bitterness on his part. It would be, perhaps, 
 unsafe to draw any positive conclusion from this, for it is not 
 easy to assign any intelligible foundation for the narrative. 
 So far, however, as it may be taken to represent some actual 
 occurrence or speech, it undoubtedly appears to indicate such 
 
ti THE JESTJS OF HISTORY. 273 
 
 i 
 
 a state of mind. And it is probable that these were his feel- 
 ings. He could scarcely hope, on any subsequent occasion, 
 to excite the same popular enthusiasm in his favour, or to 
 renew his attempt with equal prospects of success. It was, 
 therefore, only natural that some sentiments of despondency 
 and dissatisfaction should be felt and manifested, as he looked 
 forward to the probable consequences of the course to which 
 he had committed himself. 
 
 Whatever may have been the case with Jesus, there can be 
 no ground for doubting that the feelings of the Pharisees were 
 those of apprehension and anger. The preacher whom they 
 ' had reduced to silence in Galilee, and whom they had opposed 
 ' on his entry into Judcea, had shown himself strong in the 
 support of the multitude, and full of confidence in himself 
 and in his mission. They had been compelled to witness 
 his proceedings without venturing to interrupt them, only 
 , daring to raise a weak and ineffectual protest. That their 
 system was narrow and exclusive, deadening the feelings and 
 cramping the intellect, reducing the noblest faith the world 
 had till then known to a matter of rites and ceremonies, 
 things that might have had their meaning at first, but had 
 long since, to the worshippers, become devoid of all inner 
 significance, sacrificing that which was greatest to that which 
 ' was least — the inward to the external, the spiritual to the 
 - ceremonial, — may be, and no doubt is, true. And equally true 
 is it that the religion which Jesus taught was, in all essential 
 points, superior to theirs. Not the less, however, would they 
 in their hearts and consciences believe that their own system was 
 , the only true one, that the reforms which Jesus had attempted 
 to introduce would lead to a relaxation of morals and a dis- 
 regard of religion, and that, on this account, it was their duty 
 to oppose, and, if possible, to silence him. Probably other 
 and lower motives may have aided to influence their conduct. 
 There may have been personal animosity against one who had 
 essayed, not altogether unsuccessfully, to render them con- 
 
 18 
 
i 
 
 274 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. t 
 
 I 
 
 tempt ible in the eyes of the people, as well as own fear for their ■ 
 position and influence. But it is a mistake to suppose, as we are 
 all too apt to do, that those who profit by what we see to be an I 
 abuse, are therefore dishonest in supporting it or in attacking • 
 the men by whom it is threatened. The two most signal abuses 
 of the present time are, perhaps, the temporal power of the , 
 Pope, and the Protestant establishment in Ireland ; but no one I 
 has a right to doubt the perfect good faith of the E-omanist who j 
 defends the one, or the Anglican who upholds the other, even 
 though one of these should be a Cardinal minister, and the other 
 an Archbishop of Dublin. In fact, the circumstance that : 
 class interests are involved in the maintenance of any system, 
 generally has the effect of making its defenders only the more 
 sincere, since the unconscious sophistry of the feelings is thus 
 added to the unconscious sophistry of the intellect. While, 
 therefore, we may believe the system itself to be utterly wrong, 
 and might deem ourselves justified in resisting it to the utmost, 
 we are, nevertheless, bound to admit that, probably, it not only 
 seems right to its defenders, but even so absolutely right as al- 
 most to imply a moral obliquity in those by whom it is assailed. 
 And of this principle we are bound to give the Pharisees the i^ 
 benefit. Placing ourselves in the point of view of Jesus, or 
 even in the point of view of an Englishman of the nineteenth 
 century,^ we may see that his attacks were fully justified, and 
 that the realization of the Kingdom of Heaven, according 
 to his conception of it, would have been impossible, so long 
 as the people were in bondage to the system of the Pharisees. 
 We may cordially sympathize with his words when he called 
 upon those who laboured and were heavily laden imder the 
 burthen of ceremonies and the yoke of tradition, to come to i^ 
 him that they might find rest, because his yoke was easy ; 
 
 * Excepting, perhaps, the Ritualists ; but they, thouf^h men of the nineteenth 
 century, look at objects from the point of view of the fifteenth. These men, how- 
 ever, ought, if consistent, to vindicate the Pharisees against their anti-ritualistic 
 opponent. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 275 
 
 and his burthen was light ; and, at the same time, we may 
 allow for the hostility of those who had grown grey in a system 
 sanctioned by the patriots and sages of their nation, — identified 
 Avith the heroic efforts of the Maccabees, — and made sacred by 
 the blood of thousands slain in its defence. And we may under- 
 stand how, rather than allow this system to be destroyed, they 
 were prepared to adopt whatever means might be necessary to 
 crush their opponent. 
 
 The public entry into Jerusalem, and the cleansing of the 
 courts of the Temple, appear to have raised up against Jesus 
 a new class of enemies — the Chief Priests and Elders — the 
 leaders of the conservative party. At least, it is now for the 
 first time that they appear upon the scene. Henceforth, how- 
 ever, they are associated with the Pharisees in their attempts 
 against Jesus ; — the pressure of a common danger, apparently, 
 inducing these two parties to act together in spite of their 
 habitual estrangement. The next few days were, it would seem, 
 passed in reiterated endeavours on the part of his various foes 
 to bring him into discredit with the multitude, or to involve 
 him with the Roman authorities ; but it would seem without 
 success, since he is represented as evading the snares spread 
 for him, or as silencing his questioners. But, although Jesus is 
 thus described as victorious in every encounter, he is, never- 
 theless, brought to feel the uselessness of further efibrts. He 
 recoo-nizes the fact that, in Jerusalem also, his mission had 
 failed, and he announces its abandonment. 
 
 It is not improbable that the Pharisees were at first impressed 
 with the imposing character of his entrance into Jerusalem, and 
 were disposed to watch the result, and that their opposition be- 
 came stronger and more demonstrative, as every day appeared 
 to render it more certain that none of the expected consequences 
 would follow. And it would inevitably happen that the same 
 delay that encouraged them would lessen the prestige of Jesus 
 with the multitude, and diminish in an equal degree his 
 own hopes of success, so far as these rested upon the moral 
 
276 THE JESUS or history. 
 
 reformation of the people, or upon their personal adhesion to 
 himself. No subsequent demonstration was made in his favour 
 by the populace, who, no doubt, waited for some action on his 
 part, or for some invitation to action, to which they might re- 
 spond. He could scarcely have been otherwise than conscious 
 of his lessening influence, and he must have felt that it was 
 impossible it could be regained. He must therefore have 
 understood that it was fruitless to continue to expose himself 
 to attacks which were repelled on one day only to be renewed 
 with more pertinacity on the next. Hence, he in his turn be- 
 comes the assailant. He denounces the Doctors of the Law and 
 the Pharisees, and when he has exhibited the essential oppo- 
 sition between their teaching and his own, he turns to the 
 multitude and announces to them the intended termination of 
 his labours. This, at least, appears to be the natural, and 
 indeed the only conclusion to be drawn from the pathetic appeal 
 to Jerusalem, and from the words, " Ye shall not see me hence- 
 forth until you shall say. Blessed is He that cometh in the name 
 of the Lord."^ And though the precise language here attri- 
 buted to Jesus is probably coloured by the influence of later 
 events, yet there appears no reason to doubt that some such 
 apostrophe was uttered by him, and that it marks the termina- 
 tion of his public teaching. After this, all his discourses are 
 related as having been addressed to his disciples alone. 
 
 The invectives with which he had overwhelmed the Pharisees 
 would naturally deepen their animosity. And probably neither 
 they, nor the Chief Priests and rulers, would attach any 
 
 1 An attempt has been made to found an argument in support of the fourth Gospel 
 upon the words of the appeal to Jerusalem, — " How often would I have gathered thy 
 children together," etc., — as though such a speech were unintelligible ft-om the data 
 of the first Gospel, and were explained by those of the fourth. The argument, how- 
 ever, fails under both aspects. In the first place, Jesus, who for several succeeding 
 days had visited Jerusalem, as the Messiah, in the hope of meeting with popular re- 
 cognition and support, might well use the words, " How often," in reference to these 
 repeated essays ; and in the second, there is nothing in the fourth Gospel to shew any 
 such kindly emotion towards the people of Jerusalem, or any such invitation to them 
 as could suggest or justify such an image as Jesus here employs. 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 277 
 
 weight to his announced determination to abandon his pubKc 
 efforts, even if they had been aware that such a determination 
 had been expressed. Accordingly, as the only means of averting 
 the danger by which they were apparently threatened, — the 
 Chief Priests and Elders, of seeing a revolt of the people in 
 favour of a new pretender, — the Pharisees, of daily hearing their 
 practices derided and themselves denounced before the multi- 
 tude, — they decide upon procuring his arrest, trusting, appa- 
 rently, to discover afterwards the means of condemning him ; or, 
 it may be, having at first no definite purpose beyond that of 
 silencing for the moment a troublesome pretender, and keeping 
 him out of the way until the concourse of people brought together 
 by the feast should separate, and Jerusalem be left to its ordinary 
 population.^ Apparently, they did not deem it safe to attempt 
 his seizure in public. They accordingly sought means of follow- 
 ing him to the place to which he was accustomed to retire at 
 night, where he might be taken without any fear of a rescue. 
 This, apart from all other motives, they would desire to avoid, 
 lest it might give occasion for the armed interference of the 
 legionaries quartered in the City. The treachery of one of the 
 immediate followers of Jesus furnished the necessary information, 
 and measures were at once adopted to secure his person by 
 detaching an armed party, who were to place themselves under 
 the guidance of the traitor, and — when, by his help, they had 
 effected their purpose — were to bring their prisoner before the 
 Council summoned to examine him. 
 
 "While such was the purpose of his enemies, what were the 
 position and prospects of Jesus himself? It would seem from 
 the circumstance that it was thought necessary to bribe Judas 
 in order to avoid a public arrest, that considerable popular 
 interest was still supposed to attach to his movements. But 
 though he had visited the city and the temple day after day, 
 there had been no popular movement in his favour, and no sign 
 
 1 It is not imi)ossible that, so far as the Chief Priests and Elders were concerned, 
 their action may have been quickened by some intimation from the Eoman authorities. 
 
278 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 from Heaven pointing Hni out to tlie multitude as the Messiah ; 
 and he had now formally receded from the task. Whatever 
 therefore was to be done, so far as human agency was concerned, 
 must result from some voluntary demonstration on the part of 
 the people ; and of this there appeared no prospect. The 
 day of the feast of unleavened bread was drawing near, and 
 shortly after that the visitors from a distance would begin to 
 disperse. If before that time some event did not occur to intro- 
 duce the Kingdom, the failure of his attempt would be complete. 
 And what prospect was there that any such event would occur ? 
 He could not be unaware of the machinations directed against 
 him, or, at the least, he must have foreseen the probability that 
 some measures would be taken to reduce him to silence. Even 
 had it been consistent with his views of the nature of the 
 Kingdom to attempt an armed resistance, his experience in 
 Galilee must have taught him, if he had need of such teaching, 
 how little rehance could be placed upon the multitude. It seems 
 certain, however, that, in this respect, his views had remained 
 the same ; that he had never contemplated the employment of 
 force, and that he had not merely decided not to have recourse 
 to it in his own defence, but had never formed any body of dis- 
 ciples who would have been available for the purpose. 
 
 So far as our scanty materials enablo us to form an opinion, 
 Jesus appears to have relied, in his attempt in Jerusalem, partly 
 upon the influence of his doctrine to bring the whole willing 
 people round him, but principally upon some direct divine 
 interposition pointing him out as the Messiah, and leading to 
 his immediate recognition as such by friends and foes, by Jews 
 and Gentiles. This had not yet been manifested, but possibly the 
 occasion for its manifestation had not yet been furnished. It 
 might be that in accordance with the Old Hebrew sajang, " in 
 the Mount it shall be seen," his situation was not yet sufficiently 
 desperate to justify any supernatural interference. It might be 
 that it was needful for him to fall into the hands of his enemies, 
 to be exposed to their insult and cruelty, to be threatened with 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 279 
 
 death, nay to be doomed to die, before, as in the case of Isaac, 
 God would interjDOse on bis behalf. It might even be needful 
 that the extremity of death itself should be endured before God 
 would manifest himself. It might be that a sacrifice was re- 
 quired, that some one must devote himself to die in order to 
 purchase for his people the long promised and long delayed 
 advent of the Kingdom. Such thoughts were not unfamiliar to 
 the Jewish mind^ any more than the deeds that such thoughts 
 should prompt. And though even his death might not suffice, 
 though he might be forsaken by God to the end, yet what was 
 the alternative ? An ignominious flight into a foreign land, or 
 a yet more ignominious abandonment of his pretensions. We 
 cannot suppose that the idea of war at once against the rulers 
 of the people and their religious guides, and also the forces of 
 the Empire ever presented itself. His avowed principles would 
 have forbidden such a course, even if he had not instinctively 
 felt its hopelessness. His choice, therefore, if God did not in- 
 tervene, lay between death on the one hand, or flight or submis- 
 sion on the other, and of these we may well believe that he would 
 choose death. Even, therefore, if warned of the treachery of 
 Judas, as was probably the case, he may have decided to allow 
 it to be successful. Such a termination of his career may have 
 been contemplated as possible from the very commencement, 
 and it would not have become him when the anticipated danger 
 was imminent to turn from his course. He, accordingly, is 
 represented as having tranquilly pursued the course which he 
 had marked out for himself, without attempting by any pre- 
 cautions to elude or to delay the projects of his enemies. He 
 ate the passover with his disciples, obscurely and under a figure 
 intimated to them the doom that awaited him, and the treachery 
 of which he was to be a victim, and afterwards proceeded with 
 them to the garden at Gethsemane, where he was arrested. 
 
 ^ Nor to the lieathcn either. "Witness the instances of Codrus, Curtius, Decius, and 
 others, which, whether fabulous or historical, shew that the idea of self-sacrifice for 
 the sake of country was well known and highly prized. 
 
280 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Into tlie details of the closing scene, the last moments ofl 
 freedom, when Jesus, betrayed by one of those to whom he had 
 confided his aspirations and his purposes and had chosen as his 
 peculiar disciples, one whom he had loved and trusted, was waiting 
 for the emissaries of the Sanhedrim who had been despatched to 
 seize him, we do not attempt to enter. The picture presented to 
 us is necessarily ideal, for no one was present to witness his pro- 
 strations or to listen to his prayers. The petition he is reported 
 to have ofiered, accords with the view which we have taken of 
 his character and feelings. It displays a natural shrinking from 
 the doom that he foresaw, overcome by a sense of duty; that 
 struggle between the lower and loftier elements of humanity 
 from which even the noblest natures are not at all moments 
 exempt, but which here resulted in resignation and patient 
 resolve. It displays also faith in the goodness and submission 
 to the will of the Father. If this were to be the end, if, after 
 all that he had taught and done and dared, nothing remained 
 to him but to fall into the hands of his foes, if he also were 
 called, as so many of the Prophets that preceded him had been, 
 to seal his testimony with his blood, to die with hopes unrealized 
 and purposes unfulfilled, leaving it to the unknown future to 
 determine how much of his work should survive ; even this, bitter 
 as was the cross, was to be accepted, rather than shrink from 
 his task or distrust his God. Such is the general result of the 
 picture presented, and we may accept it as substantially true. 
 One thing was hidden from him, which had he known, would 
 have added to the bitterness of the hour. He could not have 
 foreseen that the hopes he had contributed to excite would lead, 
 not to the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, but to the de- 
 struction of the Jewish nationality, and almost to the extinction 
 of the Jewish people ; nor that, in his name and for his sake, the 
 seed of Abraham, for whom through life he had laboured, and 
 for whom he was then ready to die, would during long ages be 
 subject to every form of persecution and ignominy. It is a 
 noble but not a soKtary picture that Jesus here presents ; that 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 281 
 
 of a man prepared rather to endure any extremity tlian be false 
 to Mmself and to the truth. It is exceptional rather in its 
 consequences than in its character. Few martyrdoms have 
 been so fruitful in results ; perhaps none has been so. Others, 
 however, may have equalled it in the constancy and firmness 
 of the sufferer, and many have exceeded it in the intensity of 
 the suffering.^ 
 
 ^ The orthodox view of the nature of Jesus, while it may, to those who do not fully 
 realize its consequences, enhance the merit of the self-sacrifice, can only do so by 
 depriving the act of nearly all its painful accompaniments. Under this view Jesus, 
 as God, not merely foresaw it with all its consequences from all eternity ; — saw in it 
 the necessary liak in a long chain of sequences endiag in the establishment of his 
 spiritual Kingdom ; saw it as the necessary condition of his o^vn resumption of his 
 divine glory ; — but actually brought it about in order that these results might be 
 realized. Surely this must have stripped death, as death, of all its terrors, and have 
 reduced the whole suffering to the mere physical endurance, which must have been 
 insignificant to infinite power. And if it be said that, at this time, Jesus, as God, took 
 upon himself the burthen of the sins of the whole world, and endured an equivalent 
 suffering to pmxhase the happiness of the elect; it is for those who hold such an 
 opinion to shew how it is reconcilable with the unchangeableness of God. The 
 ordinary explanations of this really imply that God wrought a miracle upon himself, 
 which changed his own nature for the occasion. 
 
CHAPTER yil. 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 The discourses attributed to Jesus during tlie second period 
 of his career exhibit, for the most part, a marked change, as 
 compared with those delivered in the first; corresponding to 
 the different character in which he appeared, and the altered 
 relations it involved. It is not that the fundamental principles 
 of his teaching were altered, for these remained in substance the 
 same, but the occasions of speaking, the topics selected, and the 
 manner in which they are treated were different. Throughout 
 the first stage of his public life his utterances were almost in- 
 variably spontaneous ; whether he was pronovmcing the conditions 
 of blessedness, or declaring the essential principles of the law 
 and the spirit in which it is to be obeyed, or rebuking the indif- 
 ference of the people, or veiling his lessons in parables whose in- 
 terpretation was confined to his disciples, in all it is the voluntary 
 and unforced expression of his own sentiments which we find. 
 There is little of controversy or invective, and what there is 
 belongs almost entirely to the period immediately preceding 
 his retreat. And his teaching was almost always public, and was 
 throughout aj)propriate to the position of one whose ofiice was 
 not to found the Kingdom of Heaven, but to proclaim the 
 terms of admission to its privileges. 
 
 After the departure from Galilee, however, all this is changed. 
 He no longer addresses his discourses to the multitude. To 
 them he appeals in another character, and calls upon them by 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 283 
 
 well understood symbols to witness and support his assumption 
 of sovereignty. Tlie only teachings not directed exclusively to 
 his disciples appear to be drawn from him by the questions or 
 attacks of his gainsayers ; and it is not until the last moment, 
 when he feels that his enterprise has failed, that he turns to the 
 surrounding crowds. And then his purpose is not instruction 
 but denunciation. He does not so much teach, as inveigh 
 against various forms of error exemplified in the doctrines and 
 practices of the Scribes and Pharisees. And having done this, 
 he appears to have retired into privacy, and to have confined 
 himself exclusively to the society of his disciples. His public 
 teachings, consequently, are occasional and fragmentary, con- 
 troversial rather than didactic, and having a relation to the ques- 
 tions propounded, which must be kept in view in any conclusions 
 drawn from them. And his private instructions to his disciples 
 chiefly refer to the conduct to be pursued, and the spirit to be 
 displayed in view of their position in the coming Kingdom ; or, 
 when it was obvious that its establishment was not as near as 
 had been anticipated, to the importance of constant readiness, 
 and to the signs by which they might discern and be prepared 
 for its approach. 
 
 During the brief stay in Galilee, before making his first and 
 only entry into Jerusalem, he delivers no public discourses. All 
 that he says is spoken to his disciples. The new character which 
 he has assumed is represented as suggesting new questions, and 
 demanding new lessons. Now for the first time we hear of a 
 doubt whether he, who is himself the King of the Jews, though 
 he has not jet assumed the title, is liable to the payment of 
 a tribute. The doubt is resolved by Jesus in favour of submis- 
 sion ; but his dignity is preserved by the miraculous source from 
 whence the funds are supplied. It is probable that this incident, 
 though obviously legendary, does really preserve the record 
 of some actual discussion between Jesus and his disciples as to 
 the conduct to be pursued where payment of the capitation tax 
 was demanded, and we may be quite sure that Jesus would 
 
284 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 comply with the demand rather than invite a premature atten- 
 tion to his assumed title. Now, too, for the first time, questions 
 are raised as to who shall be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 which call forth lessons of humility, that are on more than one 
 occasion repeated. And, at the same time, Jesus is represented 
 as enforcing in a somewhat difierent form lessons that he had 
 before taught, as to the necessity of avoiding or removing 
 everything that may be a cause of offence, and as to the 
 forgiveness of injuries. Mixed with these, which are suitable 
 to his character and position, are phrases not easily to be re- 
 conciled with either, such as the references to the Church, 
 and the power to bind and loose, stated to be conferred upon 
 Peter and upon the Apostles, With regard to the Church, 
 unless we suppose a power of prophetic insight in the Apostles, 
 which their whole conduct prior to the death of Jesus contradicts, 
 the phrases " upon this rock will I build my Church," and " tell 
 it to the Church," would have been absolutely unintelligible to 
 them, for there was no body of men at that time, nor of course 
 would there be in the new order of things, answering to the 
 idea afterwards represented by the word " Church." And with 
 regard to the power to bind and loose, it is inconsistent with the 
 terms of his lessons of humility, and with the anticipated estab- 
 lishment of the Kingdom of Heaven. They both bear the im- 
 press of a much later period, when the Church was a recognized 
 body, and was regarded as the fitting arbiter of disputes among 
 its members, and when the power of binding and loosing^ was 
 an important part in the powers it assumed. 
 
 It is possible that the altered character in which Jesus ap- 
 
 1 Even assuming, contrary to the above view, that the words were spoken by Jesus, 
 and that, so far as they relate to the Apostles, they are, consequently, to be regarded 
 as implying a promise which believers must assume is in perpetual coiu'se of fulfil- 
 ment (for the promise to Peter is personal and restricted to him individually) ; it is 
 obvious that only those can be recognized as possessing it, who can shew the other 
 mark given at the same time; viz., that any joint prayer by two or more of them is 
 at once \'isibly fulfilled. With regard to the phrase, " the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it," sec D'Eichthal " Les Evangiles," Vol. I., p. 225, and the *' Gospel 
 of St. Thomas — Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels." 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 285 
 
 peared was not the sole, though it must have been the principal 
 cause of the change in his method of teaching. It may be that, 
 in the rapid course of events — only two or three weeks at the 
 utmost intervening between his entrance into Judaea and his 
 seizure — no suitable occasion was presented on the road or in 
 the city for any such discourses as had marked the commence- 
 ment of his ministry. As already pointed out, he is represented 
 as being at once encountered by the Pharisees, and they appear 
 to have allowed him but little respite. They begin by proposing 
 a question on the subject of divorce, with the view apparently 
 of compelling him either to sanction a lax practice at variance 
 with the higher principles of morality that he inculcated,^ or to 
 place himself in opposition to the law of Moses, and, possibly, to 
 the popular feeling ; or, at the least, to entangle him in a maze 
 of subtleties if he attempted to define the character of the per- 
 mitted cases of divorce. If, however, his questioners expected to 
 entrap Jesus into any unworthy compromise of principle, they 
 were disappointed, and not less so if they hoped to involve him 
 in the meshes of casuistry. He vindicated the sanctity of the 
 marriage tie, and condemned the law that permitted the man, 
 at his mere pleasure, and apart from the one sufficient ground, 
 that of adultery, to dissolve it, by a reference to the equality of 
 the sexes as indicated in the account of the creation, "He which 
 made them at the beginning made them male and female;" and 
 to the terms of the institution of marriage, " they twain shall be 
 one flesh." And when confronted with the law of Moses, he 
 answered by pointing out its relative and temporary cha- 
 racter, and by denying its competency to abrogate the higher 
 law of nature, which is also that of God.^ 
 
 1 Opposed, indeed, to his formal teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, if he is 
 correctly reported. 
 
 2 The pm-port of the answer of Jesus has been strangely misconceived, by taking 
 it absolutely, and not in reference to the existing practice among the Jews, and to the 
 object of his questioners. The Pharisees ask his opinion of a law that permitted the 
 husband, — at his mere will, — upon the most fiivolous pretence, without any appeal to 
 a court of justice, and in opposition to the wishes of his wife, to pronounce a divorce. 
 
286 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 The next saying attributed to Jesus, is one wliicli it is very 
 difficult to believe was ever uttered by bim, and quite impossi- 
 ble to believe was really spoken on tbis occasion. He bas, 
 in answer to the Pharisees, openly pronounced an eulogium 
 upon marriage as a divinely-appointed institution, and bas 
 vindicated the position and rights of the wife against the capri- 
 cious power of divorce, which the Mosaic law conferred upon the 
 husband. And then he is represented, apparently in secret 
 with his disciples, as contradicting this public teaching, and 
 admitting that the yoke of matrimony is, on that account, so 
 intolerable to the man, that he may wisely even make an eunuch 
 of himself, for the purpose of escaping the burtben. To the 
 Pharisees he says, in the hearing of the crowd, " Grod created 
 man, male and female. God instituted marriage, and com- 
 manded that a man should leave father and mother and cleave 
 to his wife. God pronounces that man and wife are one flesh, 
 and the tie, thus appointed and sanctioned, confers equal rights 
 upon both parties, and cannot be sundered by the man at his plea- 
 sure." And then, turning to his disciples, he says, " This is for 
 the public, one of the dark sayings in which I am compelled to 
 
 To this Jesus answers in substance ; the man has no special power or prerogative over 
 the woman in this respect, for the Scriptures relate that they were created together, 
 and marriage makes them one. The woman, by adultery, forfeits her station as wife, 
 and justifies the husband in putting her away ; but nothing short of this justifies him 
 in so doing, and if he assumes to divorce upon any other ground the obligations of the 
 maiTiage tie still subsist. There is nothing here as to the right of States to regulate 
 the continuance of the marriage tie, or to prescribe the conditions upon which it may 
 be dissolved ; nothing even to prevent its voluntary dissolution by the parties them- 
 selves. The whole of the answer has in view an entirely different question, and so 
 far as admitted to be authoritative, would, at the present time, allow the husband, 
 without judicial intervention, to divorce a wife who had committed adultery, and to 
 marry again. 
 
 It is true that the words, " "What, therefore, God has joined together, let not man 
 put asunder," seem, at first sight, to declare the marriage tie to be indissoluble ; but 
 it is obvious, however, that the true meaning is "a man," or "the man," This 
 results clearly fi-om the tenor of the answer itself ; and the word is the same {avdpuiros, 
 without the article) as in the question of the Pharisees, when it is rightly translated, 
 " a man." And, independently of this, it is an universal rule of interpretation, both 
 critical and juridical, that general terms are to be qualified and resti-ained by the 
 context. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 287 
 
 envelop my doctrines, in order tliat they may not be too plainly 
 perceived ; but, in truth, marriage thus understood would be 
 insupportable." It is, no doubt, possible to give another turn 
 to the saying, that would render it less derogatory to Jesus, 
 though probably none that would accord with modern Pro- 
 testant views. Upon the assumption, however, that we have 
 here an accurate report of the whole scene, this is the meaning 
 the speech must have had to the disciples, for it is the answer 
 of Jesus to their comment upon his reply to the Pharisees, that 
 if such were really the obligations of marriage, it was better 
 for a man not to marry. And on this ground it appears im- 
 possible to accept it as part of his teaching. His answer to the 
 Pharisees was not a parable nor an enigma, but a plain and 
 direct enforcement of a high principle of morality, and it would 
 argue a cynical contempt for the people in whose hearing he had 
 spoken, and a cynical indifference also to the opinion of his 
 disciples, scarcely conceivable, if Jesus had thus, by necessary 
 implication contradicted to one class of hearers, the doctrine 
 which he had the moment before taught in their hearing to the 
 other. 
 
 It would in fact seem upon these grounds that this passage 
 could not have formed a part of the original Gospel. The author 
 of our first Grospel shews himself fully capable of appreciating 
 the teaching and character of Jesus. And it is not probable that 
 he could have written this passage without perceiving the light 
 in which it placed Jesus, or that, seeing this, he would have in- 
 serted it without regard to its effect. And, besides, what means 
 this strange eulogium upon eunuchism in the mouth of a Jew 
 speaking to Jews at this period ? It would have been as unin- 
 telligible and shocking to them as it is to Protestants of the 
 nineteenth century (or rather as it would be if they did not 
 explain it away), and as it has been to the Romish Church at 
 aU times. It recalls the strange fancies of some among the 
 Gnostics who carried their contempt for matter, in theory at 
 least, to this extreme ; but it has no affinity to the doctrines 
 
288 THE JESL'S OF HISTORY. 
 
 tauglit by Jesus nor to the practices sanctioned by the Churcli. 
 The example of Origan, however, shews that it has not been 
 altogether inoperative, and it has always tended to foster the 
 latent Gnosticism which lies at the basis of so much of mediscval 
 and modern asceticism. It is allied to the spirit that peopled the 
 deserts of the Thebaid, and founded the monasteries of Western 
 Europe, but it has no point of contact with the teaching of him 
 who came eating and drinking, who taught the divine origin of 
 marriage, and enforced the performance of all the duties arising 
 out of that relation. 
 
 It is not, perhaps, easy to reduce to any order the lessons 
 taught by Jesus dm'ing this period. We may combine in one 
 view the statements with regard to the Kingdom of Heaven ad- 
 dressed to his disciples, — and on one occasion to the Sadducees, — 
 the description of the signs that are to precede the coming of 
 the Son of Man, and the parables enforcing the necessity of 
 foresight, watchfulness, preparation, and fidelity in view of that 
 event. The anticipation of the immediate establishment of the 
 Kingdom appears to have awakened feelings of ambition among 
 the disciples; and already there were disputes with regard to their 
 relative rank in its dignities. This called forth the rebuke of Jesus 
 and the renewed enforcement, imder another form, of lessons 
 which he had already taught. The qualification for the King- 
 dom of Heaven is childlike humility and teachableness ; and a 
 high position there is to be the need of him who has voluntarily 
 abased himself for the purpose of serving others. At the same 
 time, the disciples, who have given up everything to follow Jesus, 
 are to have their recompense in an elevation of dignity, corres- 
 ponding to the greatness of the sacrifice which they have made. 
 And all who have for his sake, or for the sake of the Kingdom, 
 made any sacrifice of friends or of goods, shall receive an ample 
 and overflowing reward. The state of those who are raised from 
 the dead to share in the Kingdom of Heaven is like that of the 
 angels ; they neither marry nor are given in marriage ; but 
 that Kingdom is not to be without its physical enjojonent, since 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 289 
 
 there Jesus is to drink new wine with his disciples. The Son 
 of man will come suddenly and unexpectedly, like the flood in 
 the days of Noe, upon a heedless and unprepared generation, 
 and, therefore, the true disciples must be watchful and ready, in 
 an attitude of constant expectation, with their loins girt about 
 and their lamps burning, prepared to meet their Lord ; but there 
 are signs by which the instructed may be forewarned of its ap- 
 proach, and thus be enabled to make the requisite preparation ; 
 and, while waiting, they must diligently and faithfully employ 
 whatever gifts have been entrusted to them. The precise time 
 of his coming is uncertain, and known only to the Father him- 
 self. This alone is determined, — that it shall occur before the 
 existing generation has passed away. 
 
 So far, and without dwelling upon the details of the predicted 
 signs, there is nothing we may not accept as probable. If, how- 
 ever, we minutely examine those details, it becomes impossible 
 to regard them as having been really foretold by Jesus, under 
 whatever aspect he may be regarded. Viewed as a man, this 
 precise prescience of events that were not to occur for nearly 
 forty years, is at any rate so improbable, that nothing but direct 
 contemporary evidence could render it credible. And instead 
 of this it rests entirely upon the authority of writings composed 
 contemporaneously with the events supposed to have been pre- 
 dicted. And if, in the face of this improbability, we were to as- 
 sume that this might be one of the exceptional cases in which a 
 more than ordinary sagacity enabled a watchful observer of events 
 to see the direction which they were taking, and to anticipate 
 the results which they would produce, there would still be the 
 difficulty, that although the prediction was fulfilled up to a 
 certain point in what may be termed its accessories, yet it failed 
 in its essential feature. There was the abomination of desola- 
 tion ; there were false Christs arising ; there were persecutions of 
 the disciples ; there were wars and rumours of wars ; there were 
 famines and earthquakes, and pestilences ; but though all these 
 events occurred, and though the whole of the generation that 
 
 19 
 
290 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 heard his discourses has long since passed away, the Son of 
 Man has not yet been manifested in the clouds of Heaven, send- 
 ing his Angels with the sound of trumpet to gather his chosen 
 people from the four corners of the earth. 
 
 These predictions have now for many ages been interpreted 
 by orthodox commentators in a manner which is supposed to 
 vindicate the prophetic power of Jesus ; but, thus understood, 
 they would break the promise, not only to the hope, but to 
 the ear. It is impossible that the disciples to whom they are 
 supposed to have been addressed should not have understood them 
 to imply the founding of the Kingdom which he had preached, 
 — that Kingdom of which Jerusalem was to be the capital, in 
 which they were to occupy prominent positions, and in which 
 the Children of Israel were to be the chief citizens, by the super- 
 natural appearance of Jesus in the clouds in their lifetime ; and, 
 instead of that, they foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
 dispersion and rejection of the Jews, and the ultimate establish- 
 ment of the visible Christian Church. Certainly never was 
 language less adapted to convey to those who heard it the real 
 meaning of the speaker, than was the language here attributed 
 to Jesus, as now generally understood ; and never was prediction 
 more signally falsified as understood at the time. And this 
 renders it as improbable upon the orthodox view of the cha- 
 racter of Jesus, that he should have uttered a prediction which 
 shews that he was either mistaken himself, or that he purposely 
 misled others, as it is upon the historical view that he should 
 have so accurately foreseen the course of events for so many 
 years after his death. The only reasonable conclusion in a case 
 like the present, when an alleged prophecy displays accurate 
 knowledge up to, and ignorance beyond, a given period, is that 
 it was composed, or at any rate received its existing shape at 
 that period. And such is our conclusion. Presumably, the entire 
 form of the prediction is due to the impression made upon the 
 disciples by the scenes which they witnessed, just before the fall 
 of Jerusalem, and to their belief that events so disastrous could 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 291 
 
 only presage the termination of the present, and the introduc- 
 tion of the better age, which Jesus was to inaugurate. And 
 this view is confirmed by the circumstance already pointed out, 
 that the prediction is modified in the third Gospel, and omitted 
 in the fourth ; suggesting, at least, that even before the former 
 was written, circumstances had occurred that rendered its first 
 form unsuitable. 
 
 In connection with the establishment of the Kingdom stood 
 the question as to the person of its founder. As Jesus claimed 
 to be the Messiah it was natural, and, in fact, inevitable, that 
 some inquiry should be made into his credentials, whether he 
 fulfilled the conditions which, according to the more instructed 
 Jews, were to be the tokens of Messiahship ; and one of these 
 was that he should be a Son of David. Jesus is represented as 
 himself referring to this opinion, and disputing its accuracy; but, 
 according to the ordinary view, for no purpose but to deceive and 
 embarrass his adversaries. According to the account in the first 
 Gospel, those who had never heard of the story of the miraculous 
 conception, or who disbelieved it — and we may be sure that the 
 Scribes and Pharisees were in one or the other of these classes — 
 must have believed him to be the Son of David, because his 
 supposed father Joseph was such. Certainly it must have been 
 known that this was the pretension of the family. The natural 
 and obvious course for one who claimed the dignity, and who 
 knew that he possessed this qualification, would have been to 
 call attention to the fact, aiid, in the event of its being dis- 
 puted, to challenge enquiry, secure of establishing its truth. 
 But the conduct of Jesus was the very reverse of this. Instead 
 of asserting his descent from David as one proof that he was the 
 Messiah, he denies the truth of the belief that the Messiah was 
 to be the Son of David ; and thus furnishes to his opponents a 
 ground for disputing his claim to the title. Indeed he supplies 
 the material for a very easy and obvious syllogism, to prove 
 that, whoever he might be, indisputably he was not the Messiah. 
 " The Messiah cannot be the Son of David, but you are such ; 
 
292 THE JESUS or htstoky. 
 
 therefore you cannot be the Messiah." And if it should be 
 argued that the only purpose of Jesus was to turn against the 
 Pharisees their own method of reasoning, and to shew the con- 
 tradictions in which it involved them, this argument would imply 
 that he so managed his dialectics as to lead all who heard him 
 to entertain a false opinion as to his own belief, and a false con- 
 clusion as to the fact ; for, in truth, he knew that the Messiah 
 was to be the Son of David, and that he fulfilled the condition. 
 Whoever heard these words must have understood Jesus to 
 argue that the current opinion of the descent of the Messiah 
 from David was erroneous, and hence, if they were aware of his 
 claims to such a descent, must have had their confidence in his 
 pretensions weakened. 
 
 If, however, we adopt the view that results from the whole 
 tenor of the first Gospel, exclusive of the first two chapters, that 
 Jesus was only known as the son of a carpenter, and claimed no 
 higher character ; that the lineage of his father was as obscure 
 as his calling was humble, and that this, in the mouth of his 
 enemies or of the multitude, was a ground of objection to his 
 recognition as the Messiah, the argument becomes intelligible 
 and full of purpose. It answers the cavils of his adversaries from 
 their own point of view, and by a process of reasoning, which, 
 however inconclusive it may be to us, thej'^ could not gain- 
 say ; and it asserts a right to the higher title while repudiating 
 all claims to the lower. It is the argument of one who believes 
 in his own character and mission, not because he possesses the 
 marks that were supposed to indicate the Messiah, but in spite of 
 their admitted absence ; who here, as elsewhere, protests against 
 the narrow literal views of the traditional interpreters of the 
 Scriptures, but who in arguing with them adopts their own 
 mode of reasoning ; not so much, indeed, to convince, as to 
 confute them. To the people and to his disciples he is silent 
 upon the subject. He appears to have regarded the matter 
 as one of absolute indifference ; never once referring to it with 
 them, either by way of assertion or of apology. Only to his 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 293 
 
 ' enemies, and to them only on one occasion, lie is represented as 
 speaking on the subject, and then not to assert that he is the 
 Son of David, but to shew that they were mistaken in supposing 
 that the Messiah was to be such. It would be difficult to offer 
 more conclusive evidence to shew that Jesus neither was, nor 
 claimed to be, nor Avas believed to be, a descendant of David.^ 
 Connected with the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah, though 
 less directly, is his reply when asked for the authority by which 
 he assumes to act in that character. He has entered Jerusalem, 
 and has cleared the courts of the Temple, and, on the following 
 day, when the excitement has subsided, the Chief Priests and 
 Elders challenge his authority. His answer is seemingly eva- 
 sive, for he replies by asking what appears to be an irrele- 
 vant question, viz., whether the baptism of John was from 
 Heaven or of men? The object of this question is quite in- 
 telligible. He had described John the Baptist to his disciples, 
 and through them to the multitude, as the EKas, who had 
 preceded himself ; — the Messiah. If, therefore, the Chief 
 Priests and Elders had acknowledged that John was divinely 
 commissioned, Jesus would have claimed to be the coming one 
 whom John had preached, and into whose name he had baptized 
 his disciples. And whether they admitted or denied this claim, 
 their prior admission with regard to John would have given 
 Jesus an intelligible ground upon which to appeal against them- 
 selves to the people. If, on the contrary, they had spoken of 
 John as an impostor pretending to be divinely inspired and 
 commissioned, while, in truth, he had no higher inspiration 
 than his mere human impulses, it would have been easy for 
 Jesus to have excited against them the indignation of the 
 people, and even to have made their denial of the prophetical 
 character of John an argument in favour of his own claims. 
 
 1 It is, of course, open to any one to argue that the speech of Jesus is intelligihle 
 on the ground that he knew himself not to be the son of Joseph, and, therefore, not 
 the Son of David. This argument, however, apart from all other objections, leaves 
 the bewildering and misleading effect upon the audience untouched. 
 
294 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 For, if they were so evidently in error in the case of one whom 
 all believed to be a prophet, did not this furnish a presumption 
 that they were equally mistaken in his own case ? Their re- 
 fusal to answer the question, moreover, would supply a sufficient 
 reason for refusing to satisfy the curiosity of men so blind to 
 the marks of divine influence as they would thus prove them- 
 selves to be. And this was the actual result. They are 
 represented as admitting the difficulty of the question, and 
 professing their inability to express any opinion on the sub- 
 ject, and then Jesus refuses to declare to them the authority 
 under which he acted. 
 
 There was, possibly, something in the demeanour, or tone 
 of the questioners, that impressed upon Jesus a conviction of 
 their fixed incredulity. Or, it may be, that the question itself 
 was a sufficient indication of their feelings. From whatever 
 cause, he appears to have felt the impossibility of producing 
 any impression upon the sacerdotal class, or upon those who 
 were satisfied with their own rules for the observance of the 
 law. He, accordingly, contrasts their conduct and prospects 
 with those of the most degraded and despised of the people ; 
 and he proclaims that the repentance of these latter would 
 give them a passport to the coming Kingdom, which the 
 elevated position and ceremonial performances of the former 
 would fail to secure.^ 
 
 On two occasions Jesus is represented as being appealed to 
 as a "preacher of righteousness." Once by, apparently, a 
 sincere inquirer, with a view to practical guidance, and, again. 
 
 ^ Matt, xxi., 31, 32. It has been suggested,' D'Eichthal, Les Evangiles, I., 240, 
 that this contrast between the Chief Priests and Scribes, and the Publicans and 
 Harlots, is, as well as the parable that precedes it, a later interpolation, by a disciple 
 of John the Baptist. It may be so, but surely not for the reason assigned. John 
 had preached repentance as the condition of entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 of which Jesus then claimed to be tbe founder and ruler. They, who had repented 
 at the preaching of John, would, consequently, be regarded by Jesus as having bad 
 implicit faith in himself The relative superiority of Jesus is, therefore, preserved ; 
 for though John was the instrument of calling them to repentance, they had repented 
 in view of the Kingdom that Jesus was to found. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 295 
 
 by one who denied or doubted bis authority, for the purpose 
 of testing his qualifications ; but the answers given differ 
 as widely as the motives of the questioners. To the Doctor of 
 the Law, who seeks to try him, Jesus replies in the memorable 
 sentence, so generally eulogized, but so forgotten in practice, — 
 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ; and thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself." These are the great command- 
 ments, and to them, and in so far as they enforce them, the 
 Law and the Prophets owe their significance and value. To 
 the young man, however, the reply is different. He is told 
 to keep the commandments, but beyond this, in order to be 
 perfect, to sell all that he has and give to the poor, and to 
 follow Jesus. It is not easy to reconcile these answers, for it 
 can hardly be suggested that the love to your neighbour com- 
 manded by the law implies that no one should possess any 
 private property. And if it be said that this last command 
 is a "counsel of perfection" not required of all disciples, but 
 only in peculiar instances as an eminent exemplification of the 
 Christian virtues of self-denial and almsgiving, this is scarcely 
 consistent with the subsequent words of Jesus, when, upon the 
 sorrowful departure of the young man, he treats his case as an 
 illustration of the danger of riches, and of the difficulty that 
 every rich man will experience in entering the Kingdom ; for 
 this would naturally be understood by the hearers to imply that 
 similar sacrifices would be demanded of all rich men. 
 
 It may, indeed, be argued that the answer to the one question 
 was intended to declare what was essential and permanent in 
 the law ; and to the other, to teach what was required under 
 existing circumstances, the immediate advent of the Kingdom 
 which Jesus was at that very time journeying to Jerusalem to 
 establish. Viewed under this aspect, the one would enforce a 
 lesson of universal and perpetual obligation, and the other, the 
 duty of being prepared in the view of great emergencies to 
 make the willing sacrifice of all that we most value ; and 
 
296 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 possibly this may be the true explanation. Still, if we accept 
 the two accounts as literally correct, it may not be unfairly 
 argued that Jesus had one doctrine for his foes, and another 
 for his followers ; and that he taught that beyond the per- 
 formance of the common duties flowing from the principle of 
 love to God and love to man, it is possible for a Christian to 
 attain a higher degree of merit, to "become perfect" by the 
 devotion of the whole of his goods to the poor, and of the whole 
 of his life to acts of devotion ; and this is the essential principle 
 of Monachism.^ 
 
 On one occasion only do we find Jesus called upon to express 
 an opinion with regard to the conduct to be pursued by the 
 Jews towards their Roman rulers. This was at all times a diffi- 
 cult question ; since it appeared as if it was necessary either to 
 sanction disobedience to the rule of Jehovah, or to advise a 
 hazardous and fruitless resistance to the power of Rome. To 
 admit that it was lawful for the Jews to pay tribute to Csesar, 
 implied the legality of the Roman Government in contravention 
 of the paramount claims of their covenant God. To deny its 
 lawfulness was to impose it as a duty upon every conscientious 
 Jew to resist by all available means the usurped authority by 
 which it was levied. To Jesus, in the position which he had as- 
 sumed, the inherent difficulty of the question might seem to 
 
 ^ It can scarcely be contested that the reply of Jesus to the young man furnishes 
 a plausible, perhaps a valid, foundation for the assumption of the Rev. Dr. (now 
 Father) Newman, in his " Sermons on Subjects of the Day," that "the humble monk" 
 and "the holy nun" and other regulars, as they are called, are the only true Christians 
 after the Scripture pattern. In describing their appearance, however, it would seem 
 that Dr. Newman must either have drawn upon his imagination, or have only iu view 
 countries whore Romanism is compelled to wear a mask. No one who has seen them 
 in Mexico, or in South America, or in the late kingdom of the two Sicilies, would 
 recognize a regular, whether monk or nun, in persons having "calm faces, and sweet 
 plaintive voices, and spare frames and gentle manners," or would regard such a de- 
 scription as anything but a covert, and hardly covert, sarcasm. And instead of its being 
 here that "for their meekness they meet with insult, and for their courage with 
 cruelty," they everywhere walk with the step of authority, and receive reverence, and 
 exercise dominion. With regard to their " purity " and " gravity " in those countries 
 little need be said. It cannot be denied that, in these respects, they do meet wilh 
 suspicion. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 297 
 
 be increased, since, as lie claimed to be the King of Zion, be 
 would apparently be compelled eitber to renounce tbe preroga- 
 tive tbat belonged to bis office, or to furnisb a valid pretext for 
 denouncing bim to tbe Roman functionaries as a mover of 
 sedition. Accordingly tbe question was proposed to bim, "Is 
 it lawful to pa}^ tribute to Caesar or not ?" and bis answer, adroit 
 but unevasive, not merely silenced bis questioners, but bas es- 
 tablished a principle fruitful in consequences to Christianity, 
 and susceptible of a wider application than it has yet received. 
 
 Some reasoners have objected that tbe answer of Jesus was 
 superficial and evasive, that it was trivial to decide a question 
 of principle by the mere circumstance — accident it might be 
 — that tbe current coin had a certain image and inscription ; 
 but surely this objection is unfounded. To those who judged 
 superficially, to the multitude in whose presence the question 
 was asked, the answer would appear complete and conclu- 
 sive. The coin is Caesar's, what objection then can there be 
 in rendering him what is bis ? And to those who could look 
 below the surface and see all that the currency of this coin 
 implied, the answer would have a depth and force that entitle it 
 to the admiration which it bas received. The currency of the 
 Roman coinage in Judaea as the lawful money symbolized the 
 existence of the Roman power as an actual fact. Not merely 
 did money circulate, but tbe laws were administered and au- 
 thority was exercised in the name of the emperor ; and this 
 without interfering with the worship or tbe law of Jehovah. 
 The answer of Jesus therefore implied, as it has been understood 
 to imply, " there is nothing wrong in rendering obedience to the 
 established Government in all matters within its sphere ; but in 
 matters of faith and conscience allegiance is due to God alone." 
 While the Roman power continued, a Jew might rightly re- 
 cognize its authority, and yield obedience to its laws, so that 
 they did not conflict with the higher law of Jehovah. And 
 the payment of tribute, and all analogous matters, were not 
 included within this limitation. The question bad no relation 
 
298 THE JESUS or history. 
 
 to the coming of the Kingdom, for with that the Roman do- 
 minion would cease and all would be changed. Whether all 
 this was consciously present to the mind of Jesus may be a 
 question ; but it was implicitly contained in the rule which he 
 prescribed, and it is in complete accordance with the whole 
 spirit of his teaching. 
 
 The discourses on the efficacy of prayer, connected with the 
 destruction of the barren fig-tree, and the description of the 
 judgment-scene that is to be the first act of the Son of Man 
 when he appears in his glory, are both of very doubtful au- 
 thority. As to the former, they arise out of and are dependent 
 upon the incident related, and it is not easy to suppose that 
 Jesus would in this manner have vented his displeasure upon a 
 mere inanimate object because he was disappointed in an un- 
 reasonable expectation, even if we believed that the mere ex- 
 pression of his will could have destroyed the tree. There seems, 
 however, no reason to doubt that the incident formed a part of 
 the early Christian tradition, since it is found, with trifling 
 variations, in the second Gospel. Its apparent inconsistency 
 with the character of Jesus must have been soon felt, and hence 
 its modification in the third Gospel, which transforms act into 
 parable, and the fulfilled vengeance of the one into the merciful 
 delay accompanied by measures of restoration of the other. ^ 
 This prevents us from regarding it as an interpolation, but it 
 is reasonable to suppose that some symbolical act or pai^abolic 
 expression of Jesus, consequent upon his disappointment in not 
 finding a more general support in Jerusalem, or in not receiving 
 the recognition of the rulers, had in the recollection of his 
 disciples taken this form. 
 
 The description of the judgment-scene appears clearly to 
 have been interpolated. No other Gospel contains even a 
 hint of any such discourse, and considering the importance 
 of the lesson conveyed, and the magnificence of the imagery 
 in which it is clothed, it is scarcely possible to account for 
 
 1 Matt, xxi., 19, et seq. ; Luke xiii., 6, et seq. 
 
THE JESTJS OF HISTORY. 
 
 299 
 
 that omission, if the discourse had formed part of the original 
 written Gospel, or had been preserved in the memory of the 
 disciples as a part of the teaching of Jesus. And tliere are 
 noticeable differences in the language represented as being em- 
 ployed by Jesus ; for nowhere else in the first Gospel is he 
 represented as speaking of himself simply as " the King," or 
 as describing the eternal fire as prepared for the devil and his 
 angels. If, indeed, any one should insist that the circum- 
 stance of this prediction (a parable) being now found in the 
 first Gospel is of itself a sufficient reason for concluding that 
 it was contained there from the first, and that consequently it 
 formed a part of the earliest Christian tradition, it will be 
 seen that the lesson it conveys, apart from the figurative ac- 
 cessories of the scene, is similar to that taught in the Sermon 
 on the Mount, in 80 far as it makes the test of admission to 
 the Kingdom to be not faith but works ; but that it differs in 
 making the only meritorious work to be kindness exhibited to 
 the brethren. And a little reflection will then shew that such a 
 sentiment was altogether inappropriate, in fact an anachronism, 
 at the time at which Jesus is represented as speaking ; though 
 one that was very likely to spring up in the Church in later 
 times, and then to have been transferred to Jesus and made the 
 basis of a discourse attributed to him. 
 
 The parables directed against the Pharisees, and the invectives 
 with which Jesus finally assails them, may be left out of con- 
 sideration. It is necessarily uncertain to what extent we are 
 able to rely upon their precise form, though probably they 
 truly represent the general tone of his discourse, and particular 
 expressions may have been faithfully preserved. They are 
 not so much a part of the teaching of Jesus as the outburst of 
 an indignation, righteous it might be, excited by the persistent 
 opposition of the Pharisees to his person and doctrine, and 
 roused to an overmastering pitch by the augmented vigour and 
 pertinacity, and probably also by the success of their attacks. 
 They express the intense antagonism that exists between one 
 
300 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 who is solicitous in all things to exhibit and enforce the spirit 
 of dogmas, and of laws, and those who are anxious, principally 
 if not solely, to maintain an external conformity, and who 
 would rather that men should be satisfied with creeds and cere- 
 monies than that they should omit to profess and observe them. 
 They are the final protest against the spirit of ritualism with 
 which Jesus apparently feels that it is useless any longer to 
 struggle, for they close with the mournful apostrophe to Jerusa- 
 lem, which appears to intimate the abandonment of his enter- 
 prise. After this we read of no further appearances in public, 
 and all his subsequent discourses are delivered to his disciples 
 alone. 
 
 As the Sermon on the Mount marks the commencement of 
 the public teaching of Jesus, so this fulmination against the 
 Pharisees marks its close, and the difierence between the tone 
 and spirit of the two exhibits the profound revolution in his 
 aspirations and feelings that had taken place in the interval. 
 His convictions and his doctrines, however, remain unaltered. 
 He still proclaims the obligation and sufiiciency of the law. 
 Still he teaches that it is the spirit and motive of the agent 
 embodied in appropriate acts, and not the minute literal 
 fulfilment of ceremonial prescriptions or the mere profes- 
 sion of a correct creed that satisfy what the law requires. 
 Love to God, accompanying and manifesting itself by love to 
 man, humility, meekness, self-denial, self-sacrifice, a charitable 
 construction of actions and motives, forgiveness of injuries, 
 obedience to the civil power in secular matters, and to God in 
 religion, faith in God and in the power of prayer : — such ap- 
 pear to be the lessons taught by Jesus. And the doctrines 
 against which he contends were not heretical, but. in the highest 
 degree orthodox. The Pharisees then taught, as almost all 
 Christian Churches now teach, the entire and literal inspiration 
 of the Scriptures; but they required that these ScrijDtures 
 should be interpreted in accordance with the traditions of the 
 Fathers of their Church, in the same way that every Church 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 301 
 
 •now requires them to be interpreted in accordance with, its own 
 formularies, the embodiment of its traditions. This was the 
 pretension against which Jesus contended. He did not so much 
 contest the particular instances of misinterpretation. He only 
 referred to them as illustrative of the practical consequences of 
 the system. That which he opposed was the principle of closing 
 the Scriptures against the free and unfettered investigation of 
 every enquirer, and of making them the exclusive source and 
 final limit of truth.^ With him the Kingdom of Heaven was 
 what Christianity has sometimes been most wrongly described 
 to be, — a life not a doctrine. He never once refers to the im- 
 portance of right belief; but he dwells exclusively upon the 
 value of right feelings prompting to right actions, and he makes 
 the actions the test and proof of the feelings. Against these 
 lessons the Pharisees protested during his lifetime, and almost 
 the whole Christian Church has protested since his death ; and 
 in both instances successfully. The entire history of each one 
 of the numerous bodies into which the universal Church is 
 divided, is a practical illustration of the lesson, that among 
 Christians the life is nothing in comparison with the creed, and 
 that the minutest doctrinal differences may outweigh a hundred 
 common virtues. Christianity has triumphed, but it has been 
 by adopting from the adversaries of Jesus the principles that he 
 denounced, and the spirit that condemned him to the cross. 
 Sacrifice in the place of obedience, sacramental efficacy in the 
 place of good works, orthodoxy of creed as the test of love to 
 God, and an intolerant zeal for conversion as the practical 
 manifestation of love to man : such has been Christianity as 
 exemplified in the history of the Church. And no one would 
 more emphatically protest against its doctrines and institutions, 
 
 1 " Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, . . . but I say 
 unto you," etc., is the spirit and almost the phraseology of modern neology. What 
 difference there is in the form results from our altered state of feeling, which forbids 
 any teacher to expect that his new doctrine will be received simply upon his own 
 authority. The writer has heard preachers, while enforcing very questionable doctrine, 
 use language identical in purport with this. 
 
302 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 its fantastic terms of admission and its capricious exclusions, 
 than would Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet of Galilee. 
 
 We have said nothing with regard to the alleged institution 
 of the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, since 
 they form no part of the teaching of Jesus as we understand 
 that term ; but they cannot be entirely passed over. 
 
 With regard to the former, we have already given reasons for 
 supposing that it was neither practised nor sanctioned by Jesus 
 during his lifetime. And though there appears no ground to 
 doubt that baptism was from the first the means of admitting 
 new members into the brotherhood formed by the Apostles 
 after the death of Jesus, yet it seems equally certain that the 
 neophyte was only baptized into the name of Jesus, and re- 
 quired to profess a belief in him. And this entitles us to 
 discredit the statement in the first Gospel, that the rite in its 
 existing form was appointed by Jesus himself. 
 
 In the case of the Lord's Supper, we learn from Paul 
 that it was the distinctively Christian celebration, and that 
 the brethren at Corinth had been taught by him that the 
 bread was to be eaten and the wine to be drunk in memory of 
 Jesus, and in pursuance of his injunction to the Apostles on 
 the night of the betrayal ; and it is observable that Paul does 
 not refer to any of those who had been present on the occasion 
 as testifying the truth of his statement, but claims to have 
 received it from the Lord. And this can scarcely be taken to 
 imply anything but that his account of the institution diifered 
 from that which was ordinarily accepted. We may, therefore, 
 infer that there was something connected with the breaking 
 of the bread and pouring out of the wine by Jesus on the occa- 
 sion of the last Passover shared with his disciples that was 
 afterwards imitated by the brethren in their united repasts, 
 but that the precise words ultimately attributed to Jesus were 
 determined by dogmatic considerations. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTOKY. 303 
 
 There is nothing improbable in the circumstance that Jesus, 
 in view of the dangers that threatened him, should have said 
 that as he broke the bread so his body should be broken, and 
 that as he poured out the wine so his blood should be poured 
 out. It is, however, scarcely possible to understand what mean- 
 ing the words which he is said to have actually employed could 
 have conveyed to the Apostles. To prefigure the death he was 
 expecting by the symbol of the broken bread and poured out wine 
 would have been natural and appropriate. To have asserted that 
 by the act of blessing (or giving thanks) the bread which the 
 Apostles saw him break was transformed into another substance, 
 and became a part of the very body whose hands had just 
 broken it, and that the wine was similarly transformed into the 
 blood coursing in his own veins, would have been worse than 
 unmeaning. It would have awakened in the minds of the 
 Apostles doubts and questions strangely at variance with the 
 feelings suitable to the occasion, which, moreover, could scarcely 
 have failed to have left some trace upon the narrative. 
 
 We can easily understand how language originally employed 
 in one sense might afterwards be understood in a different 
 one ; and how the gradual development of the dogma might 
 lead to such a modification of the words first attributed to 
 Jesus, as would accord with the view ultimately taken of the 
 ceremony. In the first Gospel the change from giving thanks 
 to blessing may be traced 'in the manuscripts ; and the earliest 
 introduction of the practice of blessing or consecrating the 
 " elements," which we may be sure preceded that change, could 
 scarcely have been prior to the second Apology of Justin, since 
 he there speaks of the Apostles in their Memorials as having 
 described Jesus as " giving thanks/' when he broke the bread 
 and poured out the wine. 
 
CHAPTER YIII. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. 
 
 In all tlie stages of the life of Jesus througli whicli we have 
 hitherto accompanied him he has been a free agent, working 
 consciously to eflPect some contemplated result. In the first 
 instance, in Galilee, he appears as the preacher of the King- 
 dom of Heaven, afterwards in Judaea as its destined King. 
 In the one place he exhorts his hearers by a change of 
 mind to qualify themselves to enjoy the blessings whose 
 coming he announced. In the other he calls upon the people 
 by well understood symbols, if not by actv;al words, to assist 
 in establishing his Kingdom. In both places, too, we find 
 him surrounded by a body of disciples, who were at first at- 
 tracted by his preaching, and afterwards expected to share his 
 dignity. Henceforth his position is changed. He is a solitary 
 prisoner, deserted by his followers, betrayed into the hands of 
 the Chief Priests and Pharisees. The former were men whose 
 authority he had contemned, and whose position he had en- 
 dangered. The latter were those whose opposition had dogged 
 every step, whose enmity he had accepted and defied, and whom 
 he had recently exasperated beyond endurance by publicly and 
 to their face holding them up to the execration and contempt 
 of the people. He has to endure whatever doom their fears 
 or their hatred may prompt. And while these occupied the 
 foreground of the picture, the background was shadowed by 
 the sanguinary representative of the Majesty of the Emperor. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 305 
 
 Nothing therefore is left to Jesus but to maintain in the midst 
 of contumely and suffering a faith in himself, in his mission, 
 and in his Father ; and to deny to his enemies the satisfaction 
 of seeing him abandon his principles or recede from his pre- 
 tensions. The supernatural aid upon which he had relied for 
 the success of his enterprise, had not yet been vouchsafed ; but 
 this had not shaken his confidence in the reality of his claim 
 to be King of the Jews, or in its eventual acknowledgment. It 
 is, therefore, incumbent upon him still to assert his right to 
 that dignity ; and with this to shew himself as enduring in 
 suffering as he had been wise in teaching and prompt in action, 
 and to witness a good confession in the Council, at the judgment 
 seat, and, if need be, at the place of execution ; trusting the 
 event to God in the utter absence of all human support. 
 
 It would seem, that notwithstanding the readiness with which 
 Jesus gave himself up to the persons who were sent to apprehend 
 him, there was some attempt at resistance on the part of his fol- 
 lowers ; and this may be taken to justify the adoption of precau- 
 tions taken in order to seize him when alone with his more chosen 
 disciples. We are told that he himself checked the attempt, 
 probably feeling its uselessness, and not wishing to involve his 
 friends in his own danger. And then, when the arrest was accom- 
 plished, all his companions sought safety in flight. The narra- 
 tive, indeed, implies that none of them were present at any of the 
 subsequent scenes of his life, for even Peter, — whose anxiety to 
 learn the fate of his master led him into a position of danger, 
 from which he only extricated himself by denying all knowledge 
 of the prisoner, — did not penetrate beyond the outer part of 
 the building,^ and no one of the others is represented as having 
 ventured to shew himself. It is possible that some of them may 
 have mingled with the crowd that witnessed the trial of him 
 whom they loved, which is represented as urging the reluctant 
 Pilate to pronounce a sentence of death on him ; but if so, it 
 was as silent and unwilling spectators who dared not raise their 
 
 1 "He sat without in the palace," Matt, xivi., 69. 
 
 20 
 
306 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 voices in opposition to the popular outcry. ProbaWy, however, 
 the same fears that had driven them from the side of Jesus when 
 he was taken prisoner, kept them from venturing into the midst 
 of his enemies when he was brought up for trial, lest in the event 
 of their being recognized, they should, in the excitement of the 
 moment, themselves become the victims of popular indignation. 
 The one impulsive act of violence that sprimg from the imme- 
 diate sight of the peril of Jesus, was the only sign which the 
 disciples gave of their love to his person or their faith in his 
 character. After that, terror for the moment prevailed over 
 every other sentiment, and they were absorbed in considera- 
 tions for their own safety. 
 
 The absence of the disciples, certainlj"" from the Council 
 chamber,^ and probably from the hall of judgment, necessarily 
 throws great uncertainty over the whole account transmitted 
 to us. We may, perhaps, accept as historical the statement 
 that Jesus, after being arrested, was taken to the palace of 
 Caiaphas, where an extraordinary council was sitting, before 
 which he was brought ; and that it was there decided to 
 accuse him of sedition before the Roman Governor. And 
 it is probable that he there asserted his claim to be the 
 Messiah ; since, otherwise, there does not appear to have been 
 any sufficient motive for the conduct of the Chief Priests and 
 elders in accusing him to Pilate. He had no old quarrel with 
 them, and their action was, therefore, presumably dictated 
 rather by political than by personal considerations. It might 
 well be supposed that they would have been satisfied with 
 some smaller punishment than that of death, and that, only 
 as a last resource, would they adopt a proceeding that almost 
 inevitably ensured its infliction. Indeed, the very attempt to 
 find evidence upon which to convict him of any offence within 
 
 ^ It has been suggested that the particulars of the scene described might have been 
 learned from one of the officers engaged in the proceedings, or from servants who 
 might have been present on the occasion. What reliance, however, can be placed 
 upon a traditional story that had originally no better foundation than the gossip of 
 the ante-room, or the tattle of the servants' hall ? 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 307 
 
 their jurisdiction appears to shew that their original inten- 
 tion had been to confine themselves within the limits of such 
 a charge. And if the measures adopted against Jesus origin- 
 ated with themselves this is, perhaps, the more probable con- 
 clusion. 
 
 However this may be, the details of the actual scene as they 
 are presented to us, — the disorderly condemnation, — and the 
 coarse insults by which it was followed, — rest, necessarily, upon 
 rumour, and the narrative, so far as these incidents are con- 
 cerned, probably owes its character to the exasperated feelings 
 of the disciples.^ It may easily be believed that the rude 
 and uneducated soldiers might thus treat a prisoner delivered 
 over to them ; but such conduct is consistent neither with 
 the position of the Chief Priests and elders, nor with the 
 natural desire which all would feel to maintain their dignity 
 in presence of their colleagues. And such a desire would be 
 especially felt if, as we are informed, and as is probable, some 
 of the Doctors of the Law were admitted to take a part in the 
 proceedings. Whatever either the Chief Priests and elders 
 on the one hand, or the scribes on the other, might have 
 permitted themselves to do when alone, those of each party 
 would be afraid of lowering themselves in the others' eyes 
 by conduct such as is described. And the same doubt rests 
 upon the alleged attempt to suborn false testimony, and its 
 failure. We have, in fact, no right, upon the faith of anony- 
 mous statements such as we possess, and which form our 
 only authority, to accuse a body like the Sanhedrim of any 
 such conduct as is attributed to them. There is incomparably 
 greater reason for suspecting that the accounts upon which our 
 present narratives are founded were untrustworthy, or misun- 
 derstood, than for believing that such undisguised efforts to 
 
 1 It must be remembered tbat, shortly before the period at which the original of 
 the first Gospel was probably composed, James, the brother of Jesus, and the re- 
 cognized head of the Church at Jerusalem, had been slain by the Chief Priests of the 
 day in the absence of the Eoman governor. — Josephus' Antiq., Book xx., Chap. 19, 
 Sec. 1. 
 
308 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 frustrate the course of justice should have been made by the 
 authorities, or that they should have exhibited conduct so un- 
 dignified. 
 
 If, then, recognizing the untrustworthiness of the accounts 
 we have received in their present form, we permit ourselves to 
 conjecture the course of events that suggested them, we should 
 be disposed to imagine that, upon investigation, the Council 
 found it impossible to convict Jesus of having taught anything 
 contrary to the law of Moses, or of anything that would have 
 justified them in condemning him to the lighter punishments 
 which they were authorized to impose, as had been their original 
 intention ; that upon this they found it necessary to resort to 
 the one offence recognized by the Romans, of which there could 
 be no doubt that he was guilty, — that of assuming to be the 
 King of the Jews. In support of this charge they would require 
 no evidence ; the circumstances of the claim having been public 
 and notorious. They might, however, question him as to his 
 pretensions, and, if so, we may be sure that Jesus would un- 
 compromisingly assert his title, and may believe that some such 
 unqualified assertion of his pretensions might have provoked 
 some vehement expression of indignation from the Chief Priest 
 who presided. There is nothing improbable in this, and it is 
 easy to understand how a report of such a proceeding, detailed 
 by some of those who shared or witnessed it, might assume the 
 shape it now possesses in the Christian legend ; still, it is 
 quite possible that such a conjecture fits too completely all the 
 various portions of the narrative to be accurate ; for the trans- 
 forming influence of tradition rarely, if ever, operates in so 
 simple a manner. If so, it may well be that in the absence of 
 all reliable information as to what actually did occur, the account 
 transmitted to us is imaginary throughout. All, therefore, that 
 we can safely infer is that Jesus, when brought before the 
 Council, was understood by the first disciples to have emphati- 
 cally asserted his Messiahship, and to have predicted his own 
 speedy appearance to establish the Kingdom. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 309 
 
 A still greater improbability attaches to the conduct attri- 
 buted to Pilate. It may be believed, in fact if the incident 
 of the crucifixion is historical it may be regarded as certain, 
 that Jesus was brought before him charged with sedition. If 
 so, it is probable that Jesus would admit the charge, or, in 
 other words, assert his claim to be King of the Jews. It is 
 possible also, it being the custom to release a prisoner at the 
 time of the feast (if, in fact, such were the custom), that Pilate 
 might have been willing to release one who had been guilty of 
 no actual resistance to authority, rather than one charged with 
 the same offence who had excited a tumult in which many 
 persons had been killed. And it is equally probable that the 
 Jews, disappointed in the hopes which they had formed of Jesus, 
 and angry that he should, as they believed, have deluded them 
 into an idle demonstration in his favour, and then have yielded 
 without an eiTort, should have preferred the man who had at least 
 struck one blow for national independence. But that, in the ex- 
 isting state of the Jewish population, who were ready to break 
 into insurrection at the slightest provocation, a Roman governor 
 should have treated as a light matter, — as one, in fact, not con- 
 stituting an ofience, — a claim to sovereignty publicly asserted, 
 and leading to tumultuous gathering of the people ; should have 
 confessed that he was compelled, against his will, to punish an 
 open ofiender against the majesty of Pome ; and should even 
 have employed a Jewish symbol to denote his repudiation of 
 the consequences of the act forced upon him, is utterly incredible. 
 It would be far more consistent with probability to assume that 
 the whole proceeding emanated from Pilate himself, and that 
 the only part played by the Chief Priests and Elders was that 
 of seizing the person of the prisoner, in order that bydeKver- 
 ing him up they might escape all suspicion of complicity with 
 his proceedings. 
 
 The agents of Poman authority could scarcely have left 
 Pilate ignorant of the appearance of a new pretender to- the 
 throne of Judaea, and of his intended movements so far as they 
 
310 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 could be foreseen. He must have known all the circumstances 
 attending the public entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and we 
 may be assured that he would have taken precautions to re- 
 press any attempted rising of the people. The subsequent 
 conduct of Jesus might, no doubt, have tended to allay 
 his apprehensions. Still, he could not but feel that in the 
 known temper of the multitude, gathered together to celebrate 
 one of their great national festivals, and, therefore, in a state 
 of patriotic and religious fervour, there could be no security 
 against an outbreak, but in the arrest of the pretender. Under 
 these circumstances, it would be a natural and obvious pro- 
 ceeding, on his part, to intimate to the Jewish rulers that 
 they would be held responsible if the person of Jesus were not 
 secured. Pilate would have been answerable to the emperor 
 if any rising had taken place that he could have prevented, 
 and he was not likely to have enquired very minutely into 
 the ulterior purposes of any one who claimed an authority 
 ostensibly incompatible with that of Rome, whether the end 
 designed should be effected by warlike or peaceful measures. 
 His policy was that of repression by any means, and at all 
 hazards. And with the indifference to human life and to 
 human suffering, characteristic of the individual^ and of the 
 age, he was not likely to have troubled himself to arrest the 
 course of justice, or to avert the fate of a single pretender 
 guilty, upon his own confession, of an offence affecting the 
 rights of the emperor. 
 
 Nor is it more probable that, in the course which he adopted, 
 he was in any degree influenced by popular clamour. The 
 very promptitude of his procedure, — execution following im- 
 mediately after condemnation, and the trial succeeding the 
 arrest at the earliest possible moment, — repels any such sug- 
 
 > The character of Pilate has been tranf5formed in the Christian legend, much in 
 the same manner as that of Charlemagne, in the " Carlovingian Epics," and of Attila 
 in the "Nibelungen Lied." In the pages of Josephus he appears as an unscrupulous 
 and sanguinary ruler, without remorse or pity. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 311 
 
 gestion, and shews that Pilate was, at least, no reluctant actor 
 in the scene. Had he been so, there would have been no 
 difficulty in finding excuses for a few days' delay. And if 
 he were convinced of the innocence of Jesus he could have 
 had no fears of the representations of the Jews upon the 
 subject. In fact, the very vehemence with which they de- 
 manded the execution of the prisoner would be a reason for 
 acquitting him of any serious designs ; for the Jews were not 
 so loyal that their zeal upon such a subject was above suspicion. 
 Their accusations of treason would rather furnish presumptions 
 in favour of the accused, and suggest that he had provoked 
 their hostility by refusing to aid in their projects. And Pilate 
 had been sufficiently prompt and unsparing in his measures to 
 prevent and to punish insurrection to free him from all fear 
 of being suspected of remissness because he had discharged a 
 solitary prisoner, accused of sedition, after a public judicial 
 investigation of the charge. Everything, therefore, confirms 
 the conclusion that the conduct of Pilate was, throughout, 
 voluntary and self-determined. 
 
 We are not, indeed, on that account justified in concluding 
 that the action of the Chief Priests and Elders was influenced 
 by his commands; but we must believe, — unless we reject as 
 legendary the account of the public entry of Jesus into Jeru- 
 salem as King of the Jews, — that Pilate was informed of that 
 proceeding and had taken measures for the efiectual repres- 
 sion of any outbreak, and that the Jewish rulers were aware 
 of these precautions, and dreaded their possible results. We 
 see, therefore, that the latter had a motive for their action 
 against Jesus, independently of any personal enmities ; and the 
 former a duty cast upon him of preserving the public tranquil- 
 ity, and of punishing the pretender by whom it had apparently 
 been threatened. And this, at least, was a duty he was not 
 likely to neglect. 
 
 Our only account of these transactions is contained in the 
 four Gospels, with whose language we have been familiar 
 
312 THE JESUS OF HISTOKY. 
 
 from childhood, and have been taught to receive with im- 
 plicit faith. We have, consequently, been so accustomed to 
 regard the whole proceeding from the evangelists' point of 
 view, that we are apt to forget altogether that there is an- 
 other point of view from which it would be necessarily re- 
 garded by the Roman and Jewish actors in the scene, — looked 
 at from which it would appear in a very different light. We 
 have been taught to conceive of Jesus as the Son of God, — 
 divinely commissioned — himself even divine ; working miracles 
 that " no man had wrought ; " " speaking as never man spake ; " 
 "holy, harmless, undefiled;" "the Saviour of sinners," who 
 took upon himself their burthens, and died for their sins ; 
 peaceable himself and preaching peace to others. The conduct 
 of his adversaries, consequently, appears not only without 
 excuse, but almost without motive ; to have sprung, indeed, 
 from the mere antagonism between evil and good, light and 
 darkness ; and to exhibit the envy and hatred of conscious 
 wickedness towards the good man by whose acts it is shamed 
 and by whose doctrines it is exposed. And this is a feeling 
 which it is almost impossible entirely to eradicate, and, even 
 if formally dismissed, continues unconsciously to colour our 
 conclusions upon the subject. 
 
 If, then, we place ourselves, in thought, outside of the 
 circle of these ideas, as, in justice, we are bound to do, we see 
 at once the different aspect in which Jesus must have been 
 regarded by the rulers in Jerusalem. The son of a carpenter ; 
 — probably, at one time, a carpenter himself; — he appears 
 at first in Galilee as a preacher of the coming Kingdom; — 
 of those doctrines which, in the mouths of other persons, had 
 excited such disastrous tumults. He continues the preach- 
 ing of John, the effects of which had just before furnished 
 Herod with a pretext for seizing and beheading him, if they 
 were not, as Josephus informs us, the actual motive for the 
 proceeding. Possibly the Chief Priests might have heard 
 that Jesus had taught lessons of justice and morality of a 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 313 
 
 very elevated character. In that case they must also liave 
 heard that he excited the people against their religious 
 guides ; that he set at nought the ceremonial observances 
 prescribed by the Doctors of the Law; and derided those 
 who observed and those who enforced them. And though they 
 might secretly enjoy the discomfiture of their opponents they 
 would, nevertheless, feel the dangerous character of the spirit 
 displayed by their assailant. In Galilee he continues until a 
 longer residence there has become unsafe, when he retires be- 
 yond the Jewish territory, to seek a refuge among the Gentiles. 
 From this retirement he suddenly returns, and almost imme- 
 diately after enters Judaea in a new character. He is no longer 
 the herald of the Kingdom, but claims to be its predicted king. 
 In this character he obtains numerous adherents, and he enters 
 Jerusalem surrounded by a tumultuous crowd, who recognize 
 and support his claim. He takes advantage of the impres- 
 sion produced by the number and apparent zeal of his fol- 
 lowers to exercise authority in the Temple. It is true that 
 no attempt is made to support his pretensions by an appeal to 
 arms, but he continues to assert his claim, and daily makes 
 his public appearance in the city surrounded by a body of 
 disciples who hope for promotion in his Kingdom, and appear 
 to be ready to execute whatever he may command. On the 
 one hand was the multitude, always impressionable on the 
 side of national independence, and on the other Pilate, who 
 had, on more than one occasion, made a popidar tumult the 
 excuse for indiscriminate slaughter. And Jesus, while claim- 
 ing to be the Messiah, had shown no sign, and had performed 
 no miracle in Jerusalem to authenticate his mission.^ He had 
 not even taught the lessons that characterized his early teach- 
 
 ^ It is true that Tve read, Matt, xxi., 14, "And the blind and the lame came to him 
 in the Temple, and he healed them," but this is one of the stereotyped phrases, from 
 which we are at liberty to conclude the very contrary of what they seemingly assert. 
 If the wi-iter of the first Gospel had known of any specific instance of miraculous 
 healing in the Temple in the presence of the Chief Priests, he would certainly have 
 related it. 
 
314 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 ing in Galilee. And, besides this, he had endeavoured, by 
 parable, by insinuation, and by direct invective, to excite the 
 people against the Chief Priests and Elders, as well as against 
 his ancient enemies — the Pharisees. And no one could foresee 
 the consequences which the assertion of his pretensions might 
 ultimately produce, if he were allowed to remain at large 
 during the continuance of the feast. 
 
 These things were all that the Jewish rulers saw or could 
 see. They had no spiritual intuitions to enable them to re- 
 cognize under these lowly forms the intrinsic moral superiority 
 of Jesus, or the essentially peaceful means by which he hoped 
 to realize his anticipated dominion ; and no prophetic insight 
 to shew them the picture of the future. They could not foresee 
 the belief of the disciples of Jesus in his resurrection, and the 
 transference to his second coming of the hopes that the first 
 coming had failed to accomplish. They could not imagine 
 the figure of Saul, the Jewish zealot, becoming changed into 
 that of Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, everywhere pro- 
 claiming the good news of the Kingdom, and offering an 
 entrance promiscuously to all comers. Had they recognized 
 the real character of Jesus they would have known that his 
 death was not necessary to their safety. Had they foreseen 
 the belief in his resurrection they would have known that his 
 death would be the means of accomplishing, in a new field 
 and in a different form, all that his life had failed to efiect, 
 and that the occasion of their apparent triumph was, in truth, 
 the furtherance of the cause which they sought to crush. But 
 they could only act according to their means of information 
 and their foresight of consequences, and it is not easy to say 
 how they could have acted difierently. No one can be held 
 to be morally guilty, though he may be, in some sense, respon- 
 sible, because he is ignorant of circumstances which he has no 
 means of knowing, or is unable to anticipate all the con- 
 sequences actually involved in his acts. The Chief Priests, 
 no doubt, feared the people, not merely lest they should at- 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 315 
 
 tempt to rescue Jesus if he were publicly seized, but lest tbey 
 should rise in his favour if he were permitted to be at large ; 
 and they must have feared the Romans also. Against these 
 fears they had nothing to set ; for even had they been satisfied 
 that Jesus would not himself originate any movement, they 
 might still fear lest the populace should take him by force 
 and make him a king. And, apart from any such fear, his 
 pretensions were a standing menace to the Roman authority, 
 and a constant source of danger to themselves. 
 
 Under such circumstances it would be impossible for them 
 to remain passive. How much of the proceedings actually 
 adopted was due to their own voluntary action, and how much 
 to the conduct or even to the commands of Pilate, it is im- 
 possible now to determine. It may be that Jesus was de- 
 livered up voluntarily, in order to procure his death ; or 
 that their first intention having been to try him for some 
 ofience against their law, which involved a punishment short 
 of death, they felt, after his open claim of kingship, that they 
 had no alternative but to deliver him up to the Roman au- 
 thorities, in order to escape the suspicion of complicity or con- 
 cealment ; or, it may be, they were acting throughout under 
 Roman dictation. All that we can certainly say is, that having 
 been apparently seized by their order and brought before their 
 tribunal, the Chief Priests and Elders delivered Jesus up to 
 Pilate as an ofiender against Rome, and that, as such, he was 
 condemned to death by crucifixion. 
 
 The scene that is related as having followed his condemnation 
 is so much in accordance with the natural course of events that 
 we need feel no difiiculty in accepting it as substantially true. 
 Soldiers in a conquered country, where their presence is re- 
 garded as a wrong and an insult, and where the feelings of 
 hatred, of which they are the objects, break forth upon every 
 occasion, may be expected to return hate for hate, and con- 
 tempt for contempt ; and not merely to manifest these senti- 
 ments whenever opportunity offers, but to treat with especial in- 
 
316 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 dignity any one who resists or threatens the authority which they 
 represent. The French troops in Prussia, during its occupation 
 by Napoleon, and the Russian troops in Poland, within the last 
 few years, afforded abundant illustration of these feelings and 
 of this conduct ; and we need not go so far for other instances. 
 Our own troops in Ireland, during the rebellion of '98, and in 
 India, during the sepoy mutiny, acted in a precisely similar 
 spirit, and with scarcely less violence and coarseness. The 
 instances were numerous in which men, regarded by their 
 countrymen as heroes and martyrs, were made to suffer the 
 lowest indignities — partly in the very wantonness of insult, 
 and partly as a lesson to others, and in order to mark strongly 
 the contrast between their pretensions and their success. And 
 there was nothing to prevent the exhibition of these feelings 
 in the case of Jesus. The legionaries represented the Majesty 
 of Rome ; their presence in Jerusalem at once symbolized 
 and enforced the subjugation of Judfea. Who then was he 
 who, in open defiance to them, pretended to be the King of 
 the Jews ? They would, at least, shew him, and his supporters 
 too, if he had any, at what value they rated his pretensions, 
 and those of all similar claimants ! 
 
 Such we may believe to have been the feelings that prompted 
 the treatment that Jesus experienced; — the elaborate mockery 
 of royalty and the degrading indignities by which it was ac- 
 companied. Disgraceful as the scene undoubtedly was, it is too 
 much in accordance with experience to awaken any feelings of 
 surprise or doubt. To the soldiers certainly, if to no one else, 
 Jesus was merely a Jewish pretender, who had, for the moment, 
 succeeded in persuading the populace that he was what he 
 claimed to be, but who had been seized before he had been able 
 to mature his plans or to organize any movement that could be 
 formidable. They had no acquaintance with psalm or prophecy 
 to lead them to attach any more importance to his claim than 
 to that of any other of the numerous leaders of insurrection 
 whose risings they had been called upon to quell. Probably 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 317 
 
 they had. never even heard of his name until they had been 
 under arms on the occasion of the gathering of the people 
 who "welcomed his entry into Jerusalem. He was an unsuc- 
 cessful rebel, claiming, by virtue of some unknown or unin- 
 telligible title, to have a right to the Kingdom of Judaea, but 
 lacking either the means to impart to his enterprise any pro- 
 spect of success, or the courage to employ them. 
 
 It appears impossible to understand the scene, or to render 
 justice to the actors, unless, at least, we thus attempt to view 
 it from the Jewish and Roman points of view. In doing this 
 we claim nothing more than the ability to understand in what 
 manner certain events are likely to affect the conduct of in- 
 dividuals who occupy a given position in relation to them. 
 Whether they are Chief Priests and Elders at Jerusalem, or a 
 Christian council at Nikoea or Chalcedon, or a Roman Catholic 
 council at Constance, or a synod at Dort, or a convocation in 
 England, or a general assembly in Scotland, or, in fact, a body 
 of theologians anywhere ; every one who opposes himself to 
 the opinions of the majority is likely to receive but scant 
 justice at their hands. And so whether it is a Roman pro- 
 curator in Judaea, or a lord-lieutenant in Ireland, or a govern- 
 ment resident in India, or a Russian prince in Poland, or an 
 Austrian commandant in Italy, or a French marshal in Al- 
 geria, or a Federal general in New Orleans, the treatment of 
 a rebel is likely to be very much the same, unless in so far 
 as the effect of public opinion may modify it. And when 
 it happens that the two characters of heretic and rebel are 
 combined in the same person, so that political fears are 
 added to theological animosities, it is obvious that the com- 
 bination of the two sentiments only renders more certain 
 the fate of the man who has aroused both against himself. 
 Let any one, for instance, imagine a supposed descendant of 
 the ancient Irish kings traversing Ireland at the present day, 
 denouncing the Romish faith and ritual in the name of the 
 most elevated morality — that, in fact, of the Sermon on the 
 
318 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Mount, — believed by the credulous populace to be possessed of 
 supernatural power, and professing to have come to restore the 
 national independence and to establish the kingdom of the 
 Irish in Ireland ; and in realizing the feelings with which such 
 a person would be regarded by the Romish hierarchy and the 
 English government, he may understand the feelings enter- 
 tained towards Jesus by the Jewish rulers and the Roman 
 governor. And the position of Ireland, at the present time, 
 possesses enough resemblance to that of Judaea during the 
 public ministry of Jesus, to make the one a sufficiently ac- 
 curate type of the other for our present purpose. 
 
 In many of the cases that we have above supposed our 
 sympathies would be enlisted on the side of the sufferer. We 
 feel that he has a right to the free expression of his opinions, 
 and that he is justified in making an effort to assert or to 
 regain national independence. And, probably, we shall be 
 right; for truth and freedom are realities at which a man may 
 worthily aim, and to whose attainment and diffusion his life 
 may well be devoted. But if we would be just we must admit 
 that persons are not always responsible for the system which 
 they administer, and that a mistaken sense of duty will often 
 lead humane men to acts of cruelty, from which under any 
 lower motive they would shrink.^ And there is something in 
 the relation between an ecclesiastical corporation and a reformer, 
 and between the agent of a foreign power and the subjugated 
 people that he governs, which appears to impart peculiar bitter- 
 ness to the quarrels that arise between them. While, there- 
 
 1 Father Newman, in his "Apologia," while apparently vindicating the theoretical 
 necessity of burning heretics, expresses, no doubt very sincerely, his own repugnance 
 to share or even to witness such a proceeding. And yet, were he placed in the cir- 
 cumstances in which Dominic, or Torquemada, or Gardiner, or Alva were placed, he 
 might consider this repugnance as a culpable weakness of the flesh, which it was his 
 duty to subdue, and might be led by a reaction against his natural tendencies to do or 
 sanction as much as had been done or authorized by any. It would not be the first 
 instance by hundreds of an originally humane man becoming, from a sense of religious 
 obligation, a remorseless persecutor. Claveihouse, if we may believe Sir Walter Scott, 
 could not at first see blood without shuddering, — but he shed enough ut last. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 319 
 
 fore, in this case, our sympathies are entirely with Jesus, we 
 do not regard those who procured or pronounced his condem- 
 nation as out of the pale of humanity, or as having done 
 anything which the most vehement of their denouncers might 
 not have themselves done under similar circumstances. We 
 recognize the purity of the motives, the elevation of the 
 principles, and the blamelessness of the conduct of Jesus ; but 
 we recognize also the impossibility of his opponents regarding 
 his conduct in the same light as ourselves. His case is one of 
 the numerous instances in which an innocent man has been 
 condemned to death, because circumstances placed it beyond 
 the power of his judges to perceive his innocence. 
 
 The details of the crucifixion, like those of the judgment, 
 are necessarily doubtful. According to the first two Gospels 
 none of the disciples were present ; only the women who had 
 accompanied him from Galilee witnessed the scene from a 
 distance; — "They stood afar ofi" beholding."^ They would, 
 consequently, neither hear the mournful exclamation attributed 
 to Jesus, nor the words of the centurion, nor the derisive 
 speeches of the mob, nor the revilings of the thieves. It is pos- 
 sible that the despairing cry, — *'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani," 
 which is said to have been understood by the bystanders as 
 though he were calling on Elias, may have been uttered, — for 
 such a mistake might have directed attention to the words, 
 and have caused them to be preserved. But if, in reality, any 
 such idea as that he called upon Elias were formed at the time, 
 it is quite as possible that the imagination of the disciples 
 having this basis to work upon, might have furnished the 
 words by applying to the occasion the verse of a psalm which 
 appeared appropriate. We can say no more than that he died 
 alone and unsupported, save by his own inward conviction, 
 and by his consciousness of the presence of God. 
 
 The portents that are related in the first Gospel to have 
 
 1 The third Gospel only so far modifies this statement as to make all the acquaint- 
 ances of Jesus " stand afar off," as well as the women, Luke xxiii. 49. 
 
320 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 accompanied tiie crucifixion are obviously unhistorical. The 
 darkness that covered the land ; the rending of the veil of 
 the Temple ; the earthquake ; the graves yielding up their 
 dead : all bear upon their face the character of legend. It 
 is not difficult to understand how they should have arisen, 
 for ancient story records many similar cases in which nature 
 was thus supposed to sympathize with the death of some illus- 
 trious sufferer. It is, of course, possible that there might have 
 been an earthquake, such as is described, shattering the rocks, 
 rending the veil of the Temple, and casting dead bodies out of 
 the graves in which they had been newly placed ; and accom- 
 panied by exhalations that darkened the atmosphere. But this 
 is, in fact, contradicted by the tenor of the narrative, in which 
 all things are represented as proceeding in their ordinary course. 
 Such an earthquake would have levelled the Temple itself and 
 half of the city, and no one, save, perhaps, the military guard, 
 whom discipline might have retained at their posts, would have 
 had any other thought but that of self-preservation. Nothing 
 of the kind is, however, related. And in the evening a disciple, 
 — Joseph of Arimathea, — who only now appears upon the stage, 
 never being mentioned either before or subseqviently, is reported 
 to have obtained from Pilate permission to take down the body 
 of Jesus for the purpose of burial. 
 
 It is singular, no doubt, that at this precise moment, a person 
 not before heard of, should appear upon the scene to claim and 
 to inter the body of Jesus in the absence of all the disciples 
 who had accompanied him from Galilee, and by whom he was 
 ordinarily surrounded.^ That at this moment any one should 
 have had courage to shew such interest in the pretender whom 
 Pilate had that day sentenced to death, risking the suspicion 
 
 1 This is distinctly implied in every one of the Synoptical Gospels, where the burial 
 is attributed to Joseph alone, and the women merely mark the place where the body 
 is laid, Matt, xxvii., 60, 61, Mark xx., 46, 47, Luke xxiii., 53-55. It would seem that 
 all the writers understood that the place of burial would have been unknown to the 
 disciples, had not the women followed the body from the cross and witnessed its inter- 
 ment. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 321 
 
 that might thus attach to himself, argues an amount of re- 
 solution and of conscious influence, hardly compatible with his 
 previous and subsequent insignificance. And that his request 
 should have been complied with is scarcely consistent with the 
 character and position of Pilate, who was certainly not of a 
 temper to accord an unwonted favor to a Jew, who, by his 
 very application, exposed himself to the suspicion of being a 
 supporter of sedition. It is noticeable, too, that only the two 
 Marys — Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt, xxvii., 
 61, Mary, the mother of Joses ; Mark xx. 47) — are represented 
 as seeing where the body was laid. None of the disciples even 
 knew of the burial save from their report, and none of them 
 ever saw the body of the dead Jesus, or, so far as appears from 
 the first two Gospels, ever saw the place of sepulture. And 
 what adds to the singularity, neither Mary of Magdala, nor 
 the other Mary, are ever referred to before the crucifixion, nor 
 after they had reported the resurrection. Joseph and the two 
 Marys thus appear upon the scene for a particular purpose. 
 The first is the instrument of burying the body ; the two last 
 are the sole witnesses of the crucifixion and the resurrection, 
 and they see where the body is laid. And having answered 
 this purpose, they disappear from the narrative as suddenly as 
 they had been introduced. 
 
 There is no intrinsic improbability in the statement that 
 women formed a part of the body of disciples by whom Jesus 
 was accompanied from Galilee. And if such were the case, 
 it would be natural that they should seek some spot on the 
 outskirts of the crowd, whence they might witness the last 
 moments of him whom they had loved and revered, and that 
 they should have refused to leave the place so long as the body 
 remained on the cross,^ and that, if the body were taken down 
 for burial, they should have followed it and have sat " over 
 against " the tomb in which it was placed, and, as a matter of 
 
 ^ Like Eizpah, watching the bodies of the children offered as a sacrifice to Jehovah. 
 
 21 
 
322 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 course, they would tell the disciples all they had seen. In 
 tradition, that which is probable is not always true, and not 
 a few stories, for which there is very small basis of fact, obtain 
 an easy credence, because they coincide with what is conceived 
 to be natural. 
 
 The whole account, obviously, depends upon the alleged fact 
 that the body of Jesus was allowed by Pilate to be taken down 
 from the cross at the request of Joseph of Arimathoea, who buried 
 it in a new tomb which he had caused to be hewn out for him- 
 self. And it cannot be denied that the evidence for this is, 
 to say the least, inconclusive. The only ground for supposing 
 that such a person as Joseph ever existed, is his opportune 
 appearance in the narrative at this juncture, to do that which 
 the recognized disciples of Jesus shrunk from doing ; by 
 this act avowing himself to the Roman authorities and the 
 Jewish Sanhedrim a follower of the man whom the one had 
 crucified as a rebel and the others had rejected as an impostor. 
 And having performed this act of zeal and devotion, — an act 
 which, taken in conjunction with his wealth and with his social 
 position, which, evidenced by the attention paid to his request 
 by Pilate, could not, we might suppose, fail to secure him a pro- 
 minent position in the company of disciples, — ^he drops alto- 
 gether out of the history, and only reappears in later legend 
 as the author of apocryphal epistles and the hero of a fabulous 
 mission.^ The circumstance, too, that he should have a new 
 tomb, near to the place of execution, which had never been 
 used, is one of the coincidences that are found more frequently 
 in legendary narratives than in sober history. In this he 
 is described as depositing the body, decently wrapped in a 
 linen cloth, and there leaving it, without, so far as ajDpears, 
 ever troubling himself to inquire as to its subsequent fate. 
 And, what is still more inexplicable, it is obvious that he is 
 
 1 He. is described as havinj]^ been a missionary to Britain, and to have founded 
 Churches there, to which he addressed Epistles. But the legend sprung up at an un- 
 known date ; certainly after the eighth century. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 823 
 
 not one of those to whom the fact of the resurrection is 
 directed to be communicated. The disciples to whom, accord- 
 ing to the first Gospel, the women were directed to convey the 
 intelligence were the eleven, who, in obedience to the message, 
 departed for Galilee. There is no suggestion of any recognition 
 by Jesus, or by the women, or by the disciples, of the noble act 
 which, in defiance of danger and obloquy, had prevented the 
 body of Jesus from being exposed to the indignities to which 
 the bodies of those who died upon the cross were usually sub- 
 jected, and secured for it an honourable burial. 
 
 It often happens that what is improbable may, neverthe- 
 less, be true, in the same manner that what is probable may 
 be false. We have, therefore, no right to reject a statement 
 resting upon competent evidence merely on account of its ante- 
 cedent improbability. What, however, is the evidence in this 
 case ? A narrative based upon tradition, compiled many years 
 after the event, and many years, apparently, after the two Marys 
 and Joseph of Arimathaea had disappeared from the scene, when, 
 consequently, there were no means of testing its truth. It is 
 not merely improbable, but so far from being fully supported 
 by, it is scarcely consistent with the subsequent narrative. And 
 in the part in which it is supported, — the body being laid in a 
 tomb, — this is so closely connected with the application of the 
 Chief Priests and Elders to Pilate, and with the reasons which 
 they assign, and the precautions which they are reported to 
 have taken (which are certainly unhistorical), that it is difficult 
 not to suppose the circumstance or the details of the interment 
 to have been originally suggested by the taunts of the un- 
 believing Jews. It was a ready answer on their part to an 
 assertion of the resurrection of Jesus, — " You took possession 
 of his body before he was dead, and it is not wonderful, there- 
 fore, you should have been able to exhibit him alive to selected 
 witnesses." To supply an adequate reply to this objection it 
 was necessary that the body of Jesus should have been buried 
 by one who was not an avowed disciple, as this furnished the 
 
324 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 means of taking what might appear to be adequate precau- 
 tions, which it would then be assumed were actually taken. 
 On the whole, we rather incline to the opinion that the body of 
 Jesus was not buried, and we may confidently affirm that there 
 is no sufficient evidence that it was. At the same time, the 
 early behef in the fact of the burial is shewn by the writings 
 of Paul, a quarter of a century after the death of Jesus. 
 
 The question of the resurrection is one of the unsolved and, 
 presumably, insoluble enigmas of history. No adequate ex- 
 planation of the belief has ever been suggested, and it is not 
 probable that any ever will be.^ For, in order to know what 
 would be such, it is necessary to be able to realize for our- 
 selves the state of opinion and feeling among the Apostles at the 
 time. If able to do this, we should probably find no difficulty 
 in understanding how some, to us, trivial circumstance, fully 
 susceptible of a rational explanation, had produced the belief 
 in their minds. Just, in fact, as we can understand how the 
 story of the greased cartridges, in spite of evidence ofiered to 
 the contrary, was believed by the Sepoys, and became the im- 
 mediate cause of the Indian Mutiny. Could we even be sure 
 that Jesus was actually seen alive by the Apostles after his 
 crucifixion, that would naturally have been to them a proof 
 that he had not died. His presence among them as a living 
 man — eating and drinking, and capable of being seen and felt 
 — would have made them at once aware that their belief in his 
 death had been ill-founded, and they would have been assured, 
 not of his resurrection, but that, by some accident or miracle, 
 he had been saved from death ; and such would be the inevit- 
 able conclusion now. The instances are numerous and well au- 
 
 1 An orthodox critic Tnif,^ht object that the actual appearance of the risen Jesus was 
 such an explanation. Obviously, however, it is not. The last thing that would occur 
 to a sane person, if he saw living one whom he believed to have died, and whom he 
 had even seen buried, would be that he had been actually raised from the dead. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 325 
 
 thenticated of persons who have suffered far more than Jesus is 
 represented to have suffered, at least in the first Gospel ; persons 
 who have been pierced with wounds apparently mortal, and have 
 been cast into trenches as dead, or who have been buried as dead, 
 but who have, nevertheless, recovered, and whose recovery has 
 been accepted as conclusive and incontrovertible proof that they 
 had not died. And, however apparently unmistakable the ap- 
 pearances of death might be, we should, if we afterwards saw 
 the seemingly dead man alive, be sure that we had been mis- 
 taken in relying upon them ; or, if this were impossible, as, for 
 instance, if the man had been guillotined in our sight, we should 
 at once be equally certain that the person assuming his name 
 and claiming his rights was an impostor.^ 
 
 The validity of this reasoning would now be admitted by 
 all orthodox Protestants to be conclusive, excepting in the 
 cases of resuscitation recorded in the Bible. Subject to this 
 exception they would allow that the rule was universal and im- 
 mutable, extending throughout the whole human race from the 
 first moment of its existence to the present time. And all 
 logical reasoners admit that the evidence to prove such a fact 
 as the resuscitation of a dead man should be of more than ordi- 
 nary weight, though they may demur to the conditions required 
 by M. Renan, that it should be accessible alike to the sceptic 
 and to the believer, and of a nature to allow of analysis and 
 
 ^ The very word "death," in fact, is always used as implying the impossibility of 
 revivification. So long as this possibility remains, we do not speak of a person as 
 dead. "We speak of a death-like trance ; a trance that may end in death ; a state of 
 asphyxia that may produce death, etc. ; and these states may be indistinguishable from 
 death, so far as sensible physical phenomena are concerned. The distinction between 
 these various states and death is that in the latter recovery is no longer possible. 
 These are, in fact, the differentia of death. No evidence of the actual occurrence of 
 death can outweigh, we should rather say can balance, for one instant, the contrary 
 inference furnished by the fact of the seemingly dead man having afterwards been 
 seen alive. The answer, consequently, to those who insist upon the reality of the 
 bodily appearances of Jesus after his crucifixion as a sufficient proof of the resur- 
 rection, is that these appearances, on the contrary, prove incontestibly that he had 
 never died. The proof relied upon, if valid, excludes the inference attempted to be 
 drawn from it. The belief is, therefore, a pure result of that faith which, in the 
 words of Charles Wesley, " laughs at impossibilities, and says it 'has been ' done." 
 
326 THE JESTJS OF HISTORY. 
 
 verification. What, however, is the case with regard to the 
 instances included in the exception upon which they insist ? 
 Passing over those contained in the Old Testament, which 
 rest upon statements composed centuries after the events, and 
 waiving, for the moment, all question as to the resurrection of 
 Jesus ; three cases, — those of the widow's son, of Dorcas, and 
 of Eutychus, rest upon the sole authority of anonymous com- 
 pilations; viz., the third Gospel and the Acts, composed certainly 
 out of Judaea ; — one, that of Lazarus, upon an account supposed 
 to have been written at Ephesus ; one, that of the saints, who 
 came out of their graves at the crucifixion, upon the sole au- 
 thority of the first Gospel; and one, that of the ruler's daughter, 
 even if accepted as true, suggests, upon the face of it, that the 
 patient was, as Jesus declared, " not dead " at the time. No 
 one who considers the alleged character of these acts can say 
 "that the evidence is sufficient of itself, in any one of these 
 cases, to outweigh the improbability, or even a far less degree 
 of improbability. He may still believe them to have been 
 performed ; but not upon the evidence taken by itself. His 
 belief will either be a pure act of faith, or will be founded upon 
 considerations drawn from the opinion which he entertains of 
 the probability that wonders of this or of a corresponding 
 character should be displayed in order to accredit a divine mes- 
 senger, one commissioned to proclaim a new revelation.^ That 
 he does not really believe them upon the evidence is shewn 
 by the circumstance that, if an equal or far higher amount of 
 evidence were ofiered in support of a modern Christian miracle, 
 or of a miracle wrought by one of the gods of the heathen, he 
 would reject it at once. And he would, if possible, reject it 
 the more readily if such stupendous events were related, as 
 
 ' The argument in support of this, in most instances, substantially assumes something 
 of this form. " If I had been God I should, under the circumstances, have \vi-ought such 
 miracles, and, tlierefore, I believe that God did." For a striking illusti-ation of this 
 style of reasoning, see Candlish's " Reason and Revelation," passim. It is not easy 
 to imagine anything more essentially irreverent than the tone in which such writers 
 dJBcuss these topics. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 327 
 
 they are in the New Testament, ■without an expression of 
 surprise on the part of the writer or of incredulity on the 
 part of the spectators ; just, in fact, as though the one were 
 describing, and the others had witnessed, an event extraordi- 
 nary indeed, but still to be expected. For such a narrative 
 would shew the credulous and uninvestigating spirit in which 
 the writers received and recorded the incident. 
 
 It may be argued, fairly enough, that, even admitting the 
 justness of these comments upon the character of the evidence, 
 they do not, at any rate, apply to the resurrection of Jesus, 
 because that is supported, not only by the writers who record it, 
 but by the incomparably stronger evidence aflforded by the belief 
 of those who were eye-witnesses of the fact. But this argument 
 partly proceeds upon a misapprehension. The belief of the 
 Apostles in the resurrection had two elements ; one a belief that 
 Jesus had died upon the cross, and the other a belief that they, 
 or some one on whom they relied, had seen him alive afterwards. 
 If, indeed, the latter belief were well founded, then we should be 
 compelled to assume that they were mistaken in the former, and 
 that Jesus had not died as was supposed. It is very easy to im- 
 derstand that they might have been so mistaken, if, as all the 
 earKer Grospels imply, none of them were near the cross.^ And 
 in spite of the ridicule that has been heaped upon the sugges- 
 tion, it is incomparably more probable that, when the body of 
 Jesus was taken down from the cross, some secret or avowed 
 disciple, upon finding indications of life, should have succeeded 
 in restoring animation, and have afterwards concealed him, per- 
 mitting one or more interviews with the other disciples, than 
 that, having naturally died, he should have been restored to life. 
 There are, certainly, stronger groimds for supposing that de- 
 ception was practised than that such a miracle was wrought. 
 It does not, however, appear to us probable that such was the 
 
 1 This enables us to understand the modifications that the history of the crucifixion 
 has received in the fourth Gospel ; the presence of the beloved disciple, and the thrust 
 of the spear, which was supposed to have touched the heart. 
 
328 THE JESUS or history. 
 
 case, though there are points in the narrative that suggest it. 
 The impression produced by a careful review of the whole 
 evidence is, that Jesus really died, and that some unknown 
 circumstances, acting upon the excited minds of the Apostles, 
 produced the belief in his resurrection.^ 
 
 "What these circumstances were it appears to us impossible 
 now to suggest with any degree of plausibility. If there 
 exist any original account of the transaction, it is that con- 
 tained either in the last chapter of the first Gospel, or in the 
 first eight verses of the last chapter of the second ; for we 
 may be quite certain that the remainder of that latter chapter 
 did not originally form part of the Gospel. The third Gospel 
 is professedly the work of one who has obtained his information 
 at second hand, and the last may be left entirely out of con- 
 sideration. ^ In the first two Gospels the announcement of the 
 resurrection of Jesus is described as having been made to the 
 two Marys, — in the one case by an angel, and in the other by 
 a young man clothed in white ; and then, in the first Gospel, 
 they are said to have seen and recognized and even to have 
 touched Jesus, by whom they are charged with a message to 
 
 ' A very plausible case might, however, be made out for the theory that Jesus, in 
 his journey to Jerusalem, was, to a certain extent, an instrument in the hands of others 
 who hoped to avail themselves of his popularity in order to bring about a religious or 
 political revolution. The very determination to visit Jerusalem seeming to imply a 
 reliance upon promised support, and the manner of his entry into the city seeming to 
 suggest concert and preparation on the part of adherents within. The sudden appear- 
 ance, too, of Joseph of Arimathsea, just to receive him from the cross ; the new tomb 
 hewn out in the neighbourhood of the place of crucifixion ; the circumstance that 
 some one was left at the tomb to announce the rising, and to direct the disciples to 
 Galilee ; the one interview with the Apostles, and the subsequent disappearance of 
 Jesus, lend a colour to such an idea. There are other circumstances, too, apparently 
 pointing in the same direction. And this would account for the Apostles being them- 
 selves deceived, and for the absence of all previous or subsequent notice of Joseph of 
 Arimathiea. 
 
 ^ The accounts of the appearances of Jesus, in the last two Gospels, are incon- 
 sistent with each other and with that contained in the first Gospel, and, obviously, 
 mark a later stage in the "development" of the legend. "With what rapidity this 
 development might occur, is shewn by the diflference between the last chapter of the 
 third Gospel and the first chapter of " The Acts ; " — both presumably by the same 
 author, and written within a few years of each other. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 329 
 
 the brethren. And this is all that is described as taking place 
 in Jerusalem. 
 
 There are strong grounds for believing that this also was all 
 that was originally contained in the first Gospel. The con- 
 cluding interview in Galilee is known to no other writer/ and 
 the command there given by Jesus was, so far as appears, dis- 
 regarded by the Apostles. They did not go and make disciples 
 of all Gentiles by baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,^ for they vehemently 
 resisted the admission of Gentiles into the Church, excepting 
 on the condition that they should be circumcised; — and they 
 baptized converts into the name of Jesus only.^ And instead of 
 teaching the disciples to obey all that Jesus had commanded 
 (whatever that might be), they taught them, as the only condi- 
 tion of fitness for being initiated into the society, to believe in 
 Jesus himself as risen from the dead. Even if we were to admit 
 that this did form part of the original Gospel, then the only ap- 
 pearance to the disciples is represented as having been made 
 to the eleven alone in Galilee. No appearance in Jerusalem is 
 known to the writer, — though the work was originally composed 
 in that city from the traditions there current. The whole belief 
 in the resurrection rested, apparently, in the first instance upon 
 the report of the two Marys of what they had been told, or of 
 what they believed themselves to have seen. When, however, 
 it was once formed, we see in the instance of Paul how a 
 subjective impression might be transformed by the imagination 
 
 ' The attempt to identiiy it with the appearance to the five hundred mentioned by 
 Paul, is one of those desperate expedients to which orthodox commentators are oc- 
 casionally driven. It is quite clear that none but the eleven are referred to in the 
 first Gospel. And on the supposition that five hundred were really present, how is it 
 that no other evangelist refers to what would then be the most noteworthy of all the 
 appearances of Jesus, and that the first leaves out of his account the very circumstance 
 to which the event owed its chief importance ? 
 
 2 This formula, of itself, shews that the passage in which it occurs could not have 
 been written before the close of the second century. 
 
 3 Acts ii., 38 ; 1 Cor. i., 13, and many other passages. There is nowhere through- 
 out the New Testament any suggestion that this form, given in the first Gospel, was 
 one used in baptism. 
 
330 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 into an actual outward appearance, and can, therefore, to some 
 extent, account for the reports which were subsequently cir- 
 culated as to the various appearances that Jesus had vouchsafed 
 to his disciples. 
 
 Still, it may be urged that this conclusion is not reconcilable 
 with the statements of Paul, whose veracity is above suspicion, 
 and the soundness of whose judgment cannot be disputed. That 
 Paul was eminently a truthful man can scarcely be doubted by 
 any one who reads his Epistles ; but whether, in a matter like 
 the present, he can be relied upon as having examined into the 
 evidence for the accounts that had reached him is, at least, 
 questionable. Or rather we might say that the very depths of 
 his own conviction, founded upon the appearance of Jesus to 
 himself, would render him ready to receive, as a matter of 
 course, and without investigation, any statements of similar 
 appearances to others. The last thing, in fact, that would have 
 suggested itself to his mind would have been to cross-examine 
 one of the brethren who had told him of another appearance of 
 the risen Jesus in addition to those of which he had previously 
 heard. 
 
 And, in this respect, there appears to be a great miscon- 
 ception with regard to the character of Paid. That he was 
 truthful, sagacious, far-seeing, with a clear practical sense 
 and a profound moral insight, appears undoubted ; but these 
 qualities are often found in actual life to be associated in the 
 same individual with the readiest credulity upon all matters 
 that fall in with his preconceptions. Few men, for instance, 
 had more practical sagacity or a sounder moral feeling than 
 Luther, and yet he believed in the actual bodily temptation of 
 the devil. John Wesley, again, was a man of the highest 
 order of common sense, — prudent, methodical, business-like, — 
 and he believed in omens, ghosts, and witches. A modern pro- 
 fessor is understood to believe that he has seen a man floating 
 in the air without material support, though in a very dim light.^ 
 
 ^ Even the author of the " Eclipse of Faith," acute and sceptical as he is, appears to 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 331 
 
 And Paul, wliile regulating the internal affairs of the Churches 
 which he had founded, and fighting everywhere, and at aU 
 times, the great battle of Christian freedom, was little inclined 
 either to analyze the sources of his own conceptions or to re- 
 quire a strictly logical or evidential process as the condition of 
 belief in himself and others. On the contrary, he would have 
 considered such a requirement, as probably it would have been, 
 a proof of the want of faith. 
 
 The reasoning of Paul in the chapter that contains his state- 
 ment of the various appearances of Jesus after his resurrection, 
 is a sufficient illustration of his mental character ; for though 
 we may receive his doctrines as inspired, and, therefore, proved 
 to be true by the inspiration that dictated them, — no one, proba- 
 bly, would suggest that they are proved by the arguments which 
 he employs. And so with his enumeration of the appearances of 
 Jesus. No doubt it is made in good faith, but it shews only 
 the floating rumours of the Church outside of Jerusalem, and 
 certainly does not imply any investigation on the part of Paul. 
 There is no reference to the appearance to the Marys ; none to 
 that to the two disciples journeying to Emmaus. And there 
 is a mention of an appearance to five hundred at once, and of 
 one to James, which were unknown to the writers from whom 
 the compiler of the third Gospel drew his narrative, and which, 
 though he was acquainted with the Epistle in question,^ could 
 not be made to fit into it. In fact, they appear to be outside of 
 the Christian tradition, for, except in the passage in question, 
 
 ■believe that two-and-a-half millions of persons quenched their thirst at a single well, 
 — Marah ; — at which it would be impossible, with all the appliances of pimips and 
 troughs, to water fifty thousand sheep. This belief is the more extraordinary, because 
 a little of the arithmetic which he ridicides iu the Bishop of Natal would have shown 
 him that, supposing a hundred persons could have drunk every minute, and that they had 
 continued without stopping day and night, it would have been more than a week before 
 half of the number could have had a drop. This, it may be remarked in passing, is one 
 of the instances in which none of the proposed reduction of numbers would suffice to 
 render the history of the Exodus credible. 
 
 1 As shewn by the exact resemblance between the accounts of the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper contained in the Epistle and the Gospel. One must, obviously, have 
 been taken from the other, and there can be no doubt that the Epistle is the earlier. 
 
332 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 there is no reference to them in any writings that have been 
 preserved to us.^ 
 
 The result at which we have arrived may be briefly stated. 
 If we could rely upon the accounts of the appearances of Jesus 
 after his crucifixion, we should be compelled to believe that he 
 had not died upon the cross. As it is, however, we believe that 
 he did, in fact, die, and that the belief in his resurrection arose 
 out of circumstances which it is impossible at present to deter- 
 mine ; probably out of something seen or fancied by the two 
 Marys. There are, no doubt, difficulties in whichever view we 
 may adopt ; but this is nothing uncommon ; and they are 
 certainly not of a nature to compel or to justify our belief 
 that a miracle was wrought on the occasion. Such a belief, 
 if justified at all, must be so on far other grounds. 
 
 It will then be asked if mankind are really to believe that 
 Christianity, with all that it has done for the individual and 
 for the race, is founded upon a delusion ; that the faith of the 
 Apostles had no other basis than the hallucinations of two 
 women acting upon their own excited imaginations ; that all 
 the great intellects that have investigated this subject, and 
 have been satisfied with the evidence, have been deceived, and 
 all the noble lives, inspired by the example of Jesus, and sup- 
 ported by his presence and help, have been resting on a fable ! 
 There is an ambiguity in the terms of such a question that 
 renders it impossible to answer it by a simple affirmative or 
 denial. If we were to answer it in the affirmative, we should 
 only bring Christians within the common conditions of human- 
 ity, and assert that they, like all others, are liable to be allured 
 by false hopes, to be convinced by inconclusive arguments, and 
 to believe upon insufficient evidence; assertions abundantly justi- 
 fied by our daily experience. 
 
 And with regard to the Apostles, no one can read with an 
 unbiassed mind the records which we possess of their lives and 
 opinions without admitting that even the greatest of them were 
 
 1 Excepting that to James, in the rejected Gospel of the Hebrews. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 333 
 
 capable of falling into errors, both of conduct and of doctrine, and 
 that they were not above the common level of their age ; — ^unless 
 in so far as they were raised by revelation. No one, probably, 
 would now argue that there was any objective truth in the state- 
 ment of Paul, that he was caught up into the third heaven, 
 into Paradise, and there heard words that were unspeakable ; 
 or that it was, in fact, anything but a delusion ; some inward 
 spiritual impression transmuted by his imagination into an out- 
 ward reality. And no one, probably, would suggest that these 
 men were witnesses upon whom we could rely for an accurate 
 discrimination in their account of events between what was fact 
 and what was inference, or for giving us any narrative that was 
 not coloured by their feelings ; even if any of them had left a 
 narrative that we now possessed in its original form. They 
 were eager, credulous, impressionable, — ready to believe any- 
 thing that harmonized with their expectations. And at this 
 time they were especially ready to believe anything that might 
 prevent them from losing the hopes upon which their souls had 
 so long fed. When the belief in the resurrection sprung up 
 they were in a state of tumultous excitement, terror alternating 
 with confidence, and despair with hope. Their Master was 
 dead ! The Messiah, in whose coming glories they were to 
 share, had perished by the hands of his enemies as one of the 
 lowest criminals ! The visions of the coming Kingdom had 
 terminated in this scene of humiliation and suffering ! All these 
 were vanished. But, again, this was impossible. They could 
 not have been thus mistaken, nor could their Lord have thus 
 misled them. He could not be dead, or if he had, in truth, 
 yielded to death, it could only be for a moment, and he would 
 ultimately gain the victory over even this last enemy. 
 
 There is, probably, no person who has lost one whom he dearly 
 loved, but has felt the impossibility for many days of realizing 
 the loss. And the Christian mourner, though he ultimately 
 learns to acquiesce in its truth, comforts himself with the belief 
 that the departed one is not dead, but only gone before ; that 
 
334 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 the separation is but temporary, and that they will be reunited 
 in the world beyond the grave. The apostles would psychologi- 
 cally experience the same difficulty in realizing the death of Jesus 
 as a fact, but their views of the resurrection and of the future 
 life were different from those which now prevail. The resurrec- 
 tion was to take place in their life time, and the resuscitated 
 dead were to live with the Messiah upon the earth. Their be- 
 lief as to the nature and time of the resurrection, consequently, 
 would co-operate with their instinctive inability to realise the 
 death of Jesus, and with their belief that he was the Messiah, 
 to prepare their minds to receive any statement that he had been 
 seen alive, and to imagine that they had themselves seen him. 
 And such delusions have not been so rare that we need a miracle 
 to account for the belief in this case. Further than this it 
 appears impossible to go with the materials at our disposal, and 
 we must consequently leave it as a problem that is capable of 
 only an approximate solution.^ 
 
 This, however, is the only part of the objection that presents 
 any difficulty. That an unfounded belief should be propagated, 
 and should influence the lives of millions, is too common an 
 event in the history of mankind, to excite more than a moment's 
 surprise. Every religion, certainly not excepting Christianity, 
 affords abundant illustrations of the fact. To take one instance 
 only, the validity of which no Protestant will question ; through- 
 out Christendom, at the present moment, there are probably more 
 than a hundred invocations addressed to the Virgin and the 
 Saints, founded upon a belief in their being always present with 
 each worshipper, for one that is addressed to the Father. In 
 fact, the argument implied in the question we have supposed, 
 reduced to its simplest expression, implies — No belief that in- 
 
 ' Since this was first written, Mr. Ilepworth Dixon's "New America" has been 
 published. The account it gives of the belief in the resurrection of Mother Ann, 
 forms an instructive commentary on the belief of the Apostles in the resurrection of 
 Jesus. And it is easy to understand how, in the report of distant disciples, the 
 spiritual manifestations to favoured brethren might assume material form and sub- 
 stance, capable of being seen and handled. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 335 
 
 fluences the conduct of wise and good men is a delusion, a pro- 
 position whicli can only be maintained by excluding from the 
 title of wise and good all whose belief does not agree with our 
 own. The converse of the proposition would be more nearly 
 true, for all beliefs are necessarily coloured and distorted by 
 the forms in which they are embodied, and the medium through 
 which they are viewed. 
 
 But this after all is only a part of the answer. That to which 
 Christianity has owed its wol-thiest triumphs is certainly not all 
 a delusion. The ideal of self-sacrificing virtue, of pure morality, 
 of love to God and love to Man, of trustful dependence and 
 patient hope, of faith in the ultimate triumph of good and re- 
 signation in the endurance of evil, as embodied in the pictures 
 of Jesus which the Evangelists have bequeathed to us, is a real 
 living acting power, the more influential in proportion as it is 
 studied in itself, and apart from the accretions of later dogmas. 
 It is drawn by human pens, and embodied in a human form, 
 and, therefore, it is necessarily imperfect and incomplete. The 
 only light it diffuses, reveals to us its own shadows. The ele- 
 vation to which it has raised us enables us to see loftier heights 
 and a wider prospect than were, perhaps, reached or embraced 
 by Jesus. But it has supplied an object of love and of venera- 
 tion higher and purer than the world had ever before conceived ; 
 and even now it would not be easy for those who cavil at its 
 shortcomings to portray one more worthy. And while the belief 
 in the resurrection of Jesus, and in his return to judge the 
 world, with the ecclesiastical pictures of the doom to which he 
 will condemn the unsaved, and the bliss to which he will raise 
 the elect, have been and are the main causes of the popidar 
 triumph of Christianity, it is bj^ the lessons that Jesus taught 
 in word and in act, by his doctrine and by his example, that the 
 support of the wise and good has been mainly secured. It may 
 be, we ought rather to say, it must be, that much of the detail 
 is imaginary, that in proportion as the image of the living Jesus 
 became dim in the recollection of his disciples, his lineaments 
 
336 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 assumed more heroic proportions and a loftier character, that 
 imagination was called in to supply what appeared defective, to 
 correct what appeared inappropriate, to aggrandize what ap- 
 peared inadequate ; that as the good news of the Kingdom was 
 preached to an ever- widening circle of disciples, and the Gentiles 
 were brought in, first to share and then to engross the heritage 
 of the Jews, new classes of ideas became naturalized in the 
 Church, that led to a corresponding enlargement or modification 
 of the idea of Jesus as it had appeared to his first Jewish fol- 
 lowers. All this we may admit. But there are lessons in the 
 doctrine and life of Jesus, even in their earliest aspect, that will 
 never become'obsolete or inapplicable, and it is to their embodi- 
 ment in an actual living character that they have chiefly owed 
 their practical influence. It is on this account that they have 
 penetrated and leavened modern thought, and have given much 
 of its peculiar character to modern civilization. Lessons of 
 morality had often been before inculcated ; prophets had in- 
 A^eighed against ritualism, and had insisted upon the necessity 
 of justice and mercy, of humility and self-abasement, of purity 
 and holiness ; philosophers had taught the beauty of virtue, 
 the sacredness of truth, the value of self-control and self-denial, 
 the obligation and the charm of disinterested efibrts to do good 
 and to be good ; but these lessons had been inoperative, except- 
 ing within a narrow circle, because they furnished no adequate 
 example or motive. When the obscure prophet of Galilee 
 became invested with the character of the Son of Man, the 
 representative of collective humanity, and the Son of God, 
 spiritually begotten by the descent of the Holy Ghost, on the 
 occasion of His baptism ; and still more, when later, he was 
 elevated in the creed of the Church to an equality with the 
 Father himself; then the fact, that these lessons were associated 
 with his human existence, were enforced in his teaching and 
 illustrated in his life, and above all were exemplified in the 
 crowning act of self-sacrifice accomplished by his voluntary 
 submission to the death of the cross, supplied the requisite 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 337 
 
 model and impulse. This was an instance of self-devotion, not 
 inspired by narrow and local sympathies, such as had led Ro- 
 mans to die for Rome and Jews for Jerusalem, but by a love 
 for the whole human race, and for every single individual of 
 which it was composed. Tho love thus shown awakened a 
 corresponding love in those who realized its manifestations, 
 and kindled a desire to follow in the steps and to exemplify 
 the teaching of the Master. And the life thus traced has ever 
 since remained, and still continues the ideal and the guide of 
 Christendom. 
 
 22 
 
BOOK III. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA. 
 
 " False Christs shall arise who shall deceive, if it were 
 possible, the very elect " is among the sayings attributed to 
 Jesus when predicting the signs that should precede the coming 
 of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven. But this im- 
 plies that one who made the claim would be regarded by his 
 followers and by the multitude as the true Christ, and, con- 
 sequently, that the existence of such a belief^ would be no 
 evidence of the truth of his pretensions. And these words 
 obviously would not have been attributed to Jesus in a writing 
 appearing contemporaneously with the events to which they 
 were supposed to refer, unless there had been, in fact, many 
 pretenders to the character of the Messiah who had met with 
 some support in their pretensions; probably even among the 
 disciples. 
 
 It was, consequently, no exceptional phenomenon when Jesus, 
 on his assumption of the Messianic character, gathered around 
 him a band of devoted followers, and was hailed for a moment 
 as the King of the Jews. Nor was it exceptional that he should 
 have paid with his life the penalty of his pretensions. That 
 which is peculiar, and, at first sight, inexplicable in his case is, 
 
 1 Even if resting upon the actual perfonnance of miracles, "great signs and 
 wonders," Matt. xxiv. 24. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 339 
 
 that his followers should have continued to believe in him in spite 
 of his failure ; and that after his death first the doctrines which 
 he taught, and afterwards the doctrines taught concerning him- 
 self, should have produced efiects so wide-spread and profound. 
 In all the other instances with which we are acquainted, the 
 death of the leader led to the dispersion of his followers, such 
 of them, at least, as had not shared his fate on the battle field 
 or on the scafibld, and to the extinction of his party. In the 
 instance of Jesus, on the contrary, his death appears to have 
 augmented the faith' of his followers, and to have given to their 
 zeal the needful impulse to secure the triumph of his cause. 
 
 This result, possibly, may be in part due to the circumstance 
 that Jesus, through all the changing fortunes of his career* 
 abstained from and dissuaded his followers from the employ- 
 ment of force ; and, so far as human agency was concerned, 
 relied solely upon moral means. He made no efibrt to drive 
 out the legionaries of Rome ; nor did he even attempt to 
 organize his followers for purposes of defence or of aggression. 
 He was a teacher, a prophet whose preaching had excited 
 popular attention, which, combined with his personal qualities, 
 had led men to regard him as the Messiah. In this character 
 he had been followed from his province of Galilee by a few 
 obscure disciples, and he had, for a moment, led the people of 
 Jerusalem to recognize him as their expected king. But he 
 had made no efibrt to turn the enthusiasm of his adherents to 
 account, and had peaceably awaited and endured the doom that 
 the ill success of his undertaking involved. 
 
 The first efiect of this forbearance would be that the fate 
 which overtook himself did not extend to his followers, who 
 had done nothing to excite the fears of Pilate, or to provoke the 
 anger of the Jewish rulers. They were safe in their obscurity ; 
 untouched, and, apparently, unpursued. It is true that under 
 the first impulse of alarm they sought safety in flight ; and, 
 possibly, at that moment they might have been exposed to 
 danger had they remained by the side of their Master, and 
 
340 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 thus attracted attention to themselves as his adherents. The 
 conduct attributed to Peter, — ^his denial of all knowledge of 
 Jesus at the very moment when he was drawn to the palace 
 of the high priest by anxiety for his fate, — implies this. But 
 it is obvious from the narrative that the disciples remained 
 unmolested, and (excepting in the fourth Gospel) there is no 
 indication of any apprehension of danger after the crucifixion; 
 nor is it probable that any danger threatened them. The 
 Majesty of Rome had been vindicated by the execution of the 
 pretender to the Jewish throne. The fears or the anger of 
 the Chief Priests and Elders, and of the Pharisees, had been 
 allayed by the death of the too daring reformer. And the 
 mutable populace would soon repent of the impulse that had 
 led them to demand the crucifixion of the peaceful teacher, 
 whose sole fault was a too exclusive reliance upon moral in- 
 fluences. Neither from the side of the authorities, therefore, 
 nor from that of the multitude, would there be any ground of 
 alarm. 
 
 Probably, after a short interval, there might even be a reaction 
 of feeling in favour of Jesus that would invest his disciples also 
 with a degree of popular favour. The suddenness and rapidity 
 of the whole proceedings connected with his condemnation — the 
 arrest at night, followed by trial and execution within a few 
 hours — could have allowed no time for reflection. But when 
 the tragedy was completed, it was impossible that some feelings 
 of remorse should not arise. No one among the people had any 
 injury to avenge, or any loss to mourn, occasioned by anything 
 that Jesus had said or done. If he had raised hopes that he 
 had failed to realize, at least he had not engaged them in a 
 vain struggle with the irresistible power of Pome ; wasting 
 their best blood in a conflict for which neither they nor he were 
 prepared. The spectacle of patient constancy, too, that he ex- 
 hibited, and the obvious faith in his own mission which led him 
 to brave death rather than deny his character or renounce his 
 claims, could not be without their efiect. And we may be 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 341 
 
 sure that many who had clamoured for his execution, and had, 
 in the first instance, derided him as powerless in himself and 
 forsaken by God, would return with altered feelings from the 
 crucifixion, and would vainly wish that they had, at least, 
 allowed themselves time for reflection before sanctioning the 
 irrevocable sentence. These feelings would naturally spread, 
 and they would eventually embrace those who had been the 
 friends and followers of the victim. Not merely, therefore, 
 would the disciples who had been the depositaries of the 
 doctrine of Jesus remain alive and at liberty, and thus be in 
 a position to proclaim it, but they would find an audience pre- 
 pared to listen to them with attention and sympathy. 
 
 To this extent tve may safely conclude from the materials we 
 possess. But, with the fact that the two Marys brought to the 
 disciples some statement which gave rise to the belief that Jesus 
 had risen, the authority we have hitherto followed fails us, so 
 far at least as regards the events that occurred at Jerusalem ; 
 and we have no other sources of information than the last chapter 
 of the third Gospel and the first fifteen chapters of the Acts 
 of the Apostles. The only gKmpses that we obtain of the con- 
 dition of the Church in Jerusalem during this period, from any 
 other source, are furnished by the Epistle to the Galatians, and 
 from these we can gather little more than that it was appar- 
 ently presided over by two of the Apostles who, in the Synop- 
 tical Gospels, appear in such close relationship to Jesus — Peter 
 and John — and by a James, the brother of Jesus, and that it 
 insists upon the observance of the Jewish law as a condition of 
 membership ; conclusions which scarcely harmonize with the 
 picture drawn in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The last named work is one that bears upon its face the proof 
 that its earlier chapters were not composed by an eye-witness. 
 It was written many years after the greater portion, and, proba- 
 bly, many years after the whole of the events which it describes 
 had occurred, and in a difierent country. It is obviously legen- 
 dary in its character, and it displays throughout a marked 
 
342 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 purpose ; not so mucli, however, polemical as conciliatory. Its 
 primary design appears to have been to quiet the controversies 
 that still subsisted between the two great parties in the Church 
 — one appealing to the authority of Peter, as the Apostle of 
 the circumcision, and the other to that of Paul, as the Apostle 
 of the Gentiles. With this view the two are represented as 
 sharing between them the same work ; Peter at first opening 
 the door to the Gentiles, but afterwards ceding the place to the 
 wider labours of Paul ; and Paul at first preaching the Gospel 
 to the Jews, and only turning to the Gentiles when the former 
 persistently rejected his overtures. There is scarcely even a 
 hint of any personal differences between the Apostles them- 
 selves ; though differences are, indeed, described as having 
 arisen among the brethren ; but these were adjusted by a 
 decree of the Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem assembled 
 for the purpose, to which all parties in the Church thenceforth 
 submitted. 
 
 Before attempting to understand or to trace the development 
 of ideas, and the course of events (so far as they bear upon 
 this) among the disciples after the death of Jesus, we must, 
 consequently, perforce examine into the claims of the Acts of 
 the Apostles to be regarded as a trustworthy authority. 
 
 The ordinary opinion is that the work was written by Luke, 
 a trusted follower of Paul, and occasionally his companion 
 during his imprisonment at Rome, a short time after the con- 
 clusion of Paul's two years residence in that city. And, 
 prima facie, there is much to support this view, excepting, 
 indeed, as to the name of the author, in the work itself. The 
 use of the word "we," in the account of the later journeys of 
 Paul, suggests that the writer actually shared these journeys, 
 and the termination of the work at so eventful an epoch, favours 
 the inference that it was written very shortly afterwards. There 
 are, however, objections to this view that have never been quite 
 satisfactorily answered, especially that arising from the very 
 nature of the conclusion. This implies that Paul's residence 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 343 
 
 in his own hired house, and, in fact, in Rome, had ceased ; in 
 which case it is not easy to explain the omission to give some 
 account of the circumstances attending his release, if not of the 
 place to which he subsequently retired. 
 
 Even if we were to admit that the inference arising from 
 the employment of the first person was unaffected by these 
 objections — that might, indeed, suffice to prove that the work 
 was written by a companion of Paul, but would furnish no 
 guarantee for its completeness and accuracy in the earlier parts. 
 The work is a continuation of the third Gospel, by the same 
 author. Even upon the orthodox view, it must be admitted 
 that the picture drawn of Jesus in that Gospel is incomplete 
 and imperfect, if only that it entirely omits that aspect of his 
 character which is presented in the fourth Gospel. And there 
 can, certainly, be no greater security for the fideKty of the pictures 
 which he draws of the two principal figures upon the canvas 
 of his later work — Peter and Paul. Apart, therefore, from any 
 doubts that may be suggested by the intrinsic improbability of 
 the events themselves, or by the contradiction which they may 
 receive from other accounts of the same transactions, there is an 
 antecedent ground for regarding the work with some degree of 
 distrust, and for declining to accept it as a conclusive authority. 
 And this distrust is confirmed by comparing it with the only 
 certainly authentic writings which we possess relating to the same 
 period — the Epistles of Paid. No one can carefully weigh the 
 account that Paul there gives of his own position, conduct, and 
 principles, and of the relation in which he stood to the older 
 Apostles, without being struck by the great difference, and 
 even contradiction between that account and the description of 
 him given in the Acts. There is not often any direct denial in 
 the latter of assertions made by Paul himself — so that harmonists 
 and apologists are able to reconcile the two accounts externally; 
 but the real difference is fundamental, and cannot be ex- 
 plained away. If the author of the Acts be correct, then Paul 
 in his letters is a vain boaster, — arrogating to himself the fruits 
 
344 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 of other men's labours, and claiming an independence of thought 
 and action which his whole history falsifies. And, on the other 
 hand, if Paul is to be believed, then — subject to the deductions 
 that are always necessary when the most truthful man is de- 
 fending his own conduct, deductions that refer, not to the 
 events as viewed from his own point of view, but to the neces- 
 sity of remembering that these events will appear in a very 
 different light to his opponents, — the account in the Acts is alto- 
 gether unreliable ; and this appears conclusively to shew that 
 the work could not have been written by a companion of Paul. 
 For, even admitting that he might have learned from Paul him- 
 self the real state of the case which he was compelled in the in- 
 terests of truth to depict, he could not have truly described 
 Paul as acquiescing in the subordinate position assigned to him, 
 or have refrained from giving a hint, at least, of his pretensions 
 to originality and independence. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be regarded as certain, that the visit of Paul 
 to Jerusalem, in company with Barnabas, referred to in the 
 second chapter to the Galatians, coincided, in point of time, 
 with the Council described in the fifteenth chapter of the 
 Acts ; for it is impossible to suppose, otherwise, that Paul 
 could have omitted all reference to an event so public, and 
 having so direct a relation to the subject of his letter. And 
 yet few persons, at first, would suppose this to be the case. The 
 account given by Paul of the attempt, on that occasion, to 
 compel the circumcision of Titus, is, of itself, sufficient to shew 
 how false a colouring is cast over the scene by the narrative in 
 the Acts. Whatever view we adopt with regard to the conduct 
 of Paul, — whether we conclude that he allowed Titus to be cir- 
 cumcised, or that he refused to allow it, — there can be no doubt 
 that the question must have been one of paramount interest ; 
 that it must have excited much acrimonious controversy, and 
 have left behind much bitterness of feeling. To us it appears 
 probable, in fact certain, that Titus was circumcised. This 
 could not have been done without earnest remonstrances on 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 345 
 
 the part of Paul, nor without the necessity of justifying his own 
 conduct in bringing an uncircumcised brother into the assembly 
 of the faithful. And while the attempt to inveigle the brethren 
 into eating with one who was uncircumcised would call forth 
 indignant reprobation, the concession on the part of Paul would 
 awaken corresponding expressions of exultation on the part of 
 those by whose interference it had been compelled. If, on the 
 other hand, we suppose the demand to have been successfully 
 resisted, and Titus to have remained in Jerusalem as a disciple 
 \without having been circtmicised, there must have been an 
 outburst of indignation on the part of the stricter members, 
 threatening the peace and union of the Church.^ In the Acts, 
 
 1 Much, no doubt, may be said upon both sides of this question, for our only account 
 of the transaction is that given in the Epistle to the Galatians, and the language there 
 used is ambiguous and fairly susceptible of either interpretation. To us, however, this 
 ambiguity in a writer so plain spoken as Paul is on ordinary occasions, appears to lead 
 to the conclusion that the fact was such as his adversaries may be supposed to have 
 asserted ; and that he is not denying the fact, but arguing against their inferences 
 from it. The words, too, " rji/ay/cao-erj, TrepjTftrjeTjvai," appear rather to mean "cir- 
 cumcised upon compulsion," than " not circumcised, though an attempt was made to 
 compel him." They would, therefore, imply that Titus was circumcised. The stress 
 of Paul's argument appears to be thrown upon the two words, ^'nvayKac6ri" and 
 "viroTayn," compulsion and subjection ; not denying that the act was performed, but 
 rather admitting this, and insisting that it was a voluntary concession for the sake of 
 peace, and not an abandonment of principle or a submission to dictation. It is, in- 
 deed, quite allowable, so far as the language of the Epistle is concerned, to conclude 
 the contrary ; and, no doubt, as Professor' Jowett has pointed out, there is a seeming 
 inconsistency in the language of Paul upon the other hypothesis. "When we look 
 at the position in which Paul was placed ;— alone among men who, though brethren, 
 and (possibly) baptized into the name of Jesus, were Jews and zealous for the law — 
 who were prepared to go any length for its maintenance and to reject all communion 
 with one who practically taught that it might be disregarded ;— that Titus accom- 
 panied Paul, and was probably living with him, and would have to be inti'oduced as a 
 brother to the assemblies of the brethren, and to partake with them of the memorial 
 supper ; that, consequently, those who insisted most sti-ongly upon the necessity of 
 circumcision would have been required to waive this point in the case of Titus, and 
 even to consent to eat with him for the sake of a man whom they were scarcely 
 prepared to recognize as truly one of themselves, it will, we think, appear that the 
 concession was inevitable, and that there was no alternative open to Paul imless he 
 had withdrawn himself altogether. If he could afterwards deliberately say, "neither 
 circumcision availeth anj-thing nor imcircumcision," we may reasonably suppose him 
 to have felt that the concession in the case of Titus was insignificant in comparison 
 with the advantages to be gained ; though he may well have been embarrassed by the 
 purpose to which it was turned by those who insisted upon the necessity of circum- 
 cision in the case of all converts. 
 
346 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 there does not appear even a trace of the fact itself or of the 
 debates with which it was connected, and if the Epistle to 
 the Galatians had not been preserved, we should have known 
 nothing whatever of the demand, nor of the presence of Titus 
 on that occasion, nor even, indeed, that such a person existed.^ 
 
 Although, however, nothing is said of the circumcising of 
 Titus to which Paul himself refers, there is, in the next chapter 
 of the Acts (xvi., 3), an account of the circumcising of Timothy 
 almost immediately after the return from Jerusalem, as a volun- 
 tary act on the part of Paul, for the purpose of disarming the 
 opposition of the Jews who were living among the Gentiles, and 
 at whose hands he had already suffered and was still about to 
 suffer so much. It appears to us impossible that Paul could 
 have done this ; though it is, perhaps, more probable that we 
 have here a distorted reminiscence of the fact that Titus had 
 been circumcised "because of the Jews," than that the author of 
 the Acts invented the incident. That Paul in Jerusalem, where 
 he was about to introduce Titus as a brother to the Jewish 
 brethren, of whom the Church in that place was exclusively 
 composed, should have consented to his circumcision when false 
 brethren had spied out the fact that he was yet uncircumcised, 
 is intelligible, and it is not inconsistent with that principle of 
 accommodation in matters merely ceremonial which he professed. 
 But that he should have circumcised Timothy in Asia Minor, 
 where he was preaching Christian liberty — in his own peculiar 
 
 ^ According to Paul, he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and he went by 
 revelation ; according to the Acts, the two form part of a deputation from the Church 
 at Antioch ; according to Paul he communicated privately to them that were of re- 
 putation the Gospel he preached among the Gentiles ; according to the Acts they are 
 received of the Church and declare all things that God had done by them ; according 
 to Paul, the Church (or they of reputation ?) sees that the Gospel of the uncircum- 
 cision was committed to him, as that of the circumcision to Peter ; according to the 
 Acts, Peter publicly, in presence of Paul, claims that " God made choice that by his 
 mouth the Gentiles should learn the word of the Gospel and believe ;" according to 
 Paul, "they that seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to him;" accord- 
 ing to the Acts, there was a decree of the Church that settled the matter in dispute, 
 and was communicated to Antioch by delegates from Jerusalem. These statements 
 may be "harmonized," but only by a process that implies not only the suppressio vert, 
 but the auggestio falsi, in one or both. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 347 
 
 field of labour, — and that he should have done this not to meet 
 the scruples of men who, after all, were brethren, though 
 narrow-minded and exclusive, but of Jews, who denied Jesus 
 to be the Messiah, is utterly incredible ; unless we admit an 
 amount of weakness and vacillation in his character which 
 nothing in his writings, at least, suggests. It is one thing to 
 concede an unessential point to the scruples of weaker brethren, 
 and another to perform the same act to deprecate the hostility 
 of avowed opponents. The former comes within the principle 
 of the rule that Paul himself lays down, — " It is good neither 
 to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby 
 thy brother stumbleth, or is ofiended, or is made weak." The 
 latter is a cowardly abandonment of principle. The one, 
 too, would be conciliatory. It would tend to promote union 
 among the more liberal minded, and to prevent the open dis- 
 ruption of the more bigotted. The other would be equally 
 impolitic and degrading, — and would only give greater con- 
 sistency and boldness to the hostility of those whose opposition 
 had enforced such a compliance. The one, consequently, is 
 what we might expect from Paul ; — though he might after- 
 wards, seeing the consequences deduced from his act, have 
 regretted his concession. The other is an act which, accord- 
 ing to the picture he draws of himself, we may be certain he 
 would have died rather than have performed. 
 
 We, therefore, conclude that Timothy was not circumcised ; 
 and if we were compelled to believe that the writer of the 
 Acts had invented this incident, while he suppressed the cor- 
 responding instance of Titus, as must have been the case if 
 he had been a companion of Paul, it would be impossible to 
 acquit him of deliberate ill faith. It appears more probable, 
 that the traditions which he followed had confused the circum- 
 stances attending the circumcision of Titus, or had left them 
 uncertain, and that he adopted that version which fitted best 
 with his object of bridging over the difierences that separated 
 the teaching of Paul from that of the Church at Jerusalem. 
 
348 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Another explanation of the apparent discrepancy may be, 
 however, suggested. The author of the Acts, it may be argued, 
 might have thought it needless to record an incident which the 
 explanations of Paul had already rendered sufficiently notorious, 
 and which, owing to his ready compliance, had scarcely, or not 
 at all, ruffled the surface of the Church, but had felt it his duty 
 to bring into notice the other analogous incident which Paul, 
 for reasons best known to himself, had chosen to pass over ; 
 but in this case what opinion are we to form of the candour 
 and truthfulness of Paul ? And how are we to account for his 
 silence as to the case of Timothy, while justifying himself in 
 that of Titus? No candid reasoner, while shewing that the 
 latter was a mere concession demanded by the peculiar relation 
 in which he then stood to the brethren at Jerusalem — Jews in 
 the Jewish metropolis, — and by the intervention of brethren, 
 though false ones could have omitted all notice of the other, 
 where none of these justifying circumstances were present. 
 And more, if he from fear of the Jews had caused Timothy 
 to be circumcised, with what consistency could he say to those 
 whom he was addressing, " Behold I, Paul, say unto you, that 
 if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing." It 
 would have been, at the least, folly or hypocrisy to condemn 
 them for yielding in this point to Judaizing brethren, when he 
 had himself thus yielded in the same point to imbelieving Jews. 
 
 And, besides this, it is scarcely conceiveable, even upon the 
 mere common place groimd of a regard for the success of his 
 argument that Paul should have ventured to omit all mention 
 of Timothy. He is not in the position of an orator, address- 
 ing an excited audience, who feels that he need not too nicely 
 measure his statements, since his hearers have neither the oppor- 
 tunity nor the inclination to remember the facts which he sup- 
 presses. On the contrary, he is writing a letter designed to pro- 
 duce a permanent impression ; that will be read and re-read, and 
 discussed and disputed. It would have defeated his own object 
 in writing to have excused one instance of concession on account 
 
THE JESI7S OF HISTORY. 349 
 
 of peculiar circumstances with which his readers were familiar, 
 and whose urgency they could estimate, when he was aware 
 that those to whom he wrote could retort upon him that, away 
 from Jerusalem, he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, when entering 
 upon another missionary journey, had attempted in vain to pro- 
 pitiate the enmity of the Jews by a similar compliance ; and 
 he must surely have known how ready such a retort woidd be. 
 Those who " troubled " the Galatians, and desired to have 
 them circumcised, could not have been ignorant of the case of 
 Timothy, and they certainly would not have failed to employ 
 it as an argument against himself. And they might have used 
 it, not merely to shew that his own example proved that there 
 could not be any objection on principle to the circumcising of 
 Christian converts, but also to exhibit him as a disingenuous 
 reasoner, who had kept back the very one act of his own life 
 which told most strongly against his present doctrine. 
 
 These considerations might not be sufficient, possibly, to 
 justify our rejection of a contemporary narrative by a known 
 author who had competent means of knowledge, but they 
 abundantly justify us in declining to receive as true an anony- 
 mous statement published we know not where nor when, and 
 entirely without corroboration. 
 
 The inference to be drawn from this capital instance, as it 
 appears to us, is strengthened by many other circumstances. 
 The discrepancies between the account given by Paul of his 
 own proceedings after his conversion and that given in the Acts 
 have taxed the ingenuity of innumerable commentators, and 
 cannot be reconciled without doing violence to one statement 
 or to the other. According to the Acts Paul preaches Christ 
 in the sjoiagogues of Damascus, and confounds the Jews of that 
 place who seek to kill him. He then proceeds to Jerusalem, 
 where he essays to join the disciples, but is unable to do so 
 until Barnabas takes him by the hand and testifies to his con- 
 version. After this he remains with them "coming in and going 
 out," and excites so much personal hostility that the brethren 
 
350 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 are compelled, in order to save his life, to send him away pri- 
 vately to Cscsarea, whence he proceeds to Tarsus. And then, 
 after his departure, Peter first preaches the Gospel to a Gentile, 
 admits him into the Church by baptism only, and eats with 
 him and his family, still being uncircumcised. According to 
 the statement of Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians, 
 "God having revealed Christ in him that he should preach him 
 to the Gentiles," he sought no human counsel nor information, 
 and did not even go to Jerusalem where they might be ob- 
 tained, but went to Arabia, whence he returned to Damascus. 
 Then, after three years, he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, with 
 whom he stayed for a fortnight, and, with the exception of 
 James, saw no other of the brethren. From Jerusalem he 
 went to Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face to the 
 Churches in Judaea, who knew of him only by hearsay. And 
 long afterwards, when he paid a second visit to Jerusalem, the 
 brethren recognized that just as the Gospel of the circumcision 
 was committed to Peter, so the Gospel of the uncircumcision 
 was committed to him. 
 
 Both of these statements, obviously, cannot be true. "We 
 may, indeed, admit that if we had a narrative from Peter or 
 James, the colouring of the transactions would be diflferent, 
 corresponding to the difierent points of view of the narrator, and 
 that it would be equally entitled to credit with that of Paul. 
 When, however, the question is one of fact ; — did Paul at once, 
 after his conversion, preach in Damascus so as to provoke the 
 enmity of the Jews, to escape which he is sent to Jerusalem, 
 or did he retire to Arabia ? Did he, when he ultimately visited 
 Jerusalem, join himself to the brethren and become so notorious 
 as a preacher of the Word, that they were compelled to take 
 measures for his safety, or did he only see Peter and James, and 
 remain unknown by face to the Churches in Judaja ? We are 
 bound to accept the statement of Paul. His letter is written 
 to wavering followers, and would, as a matter of course, be 
 commimicated to open opponents. We have, therefore, all the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 351 
 
 security that the nature of the case admits, that he would say 
 nothing that could be fairly disputed ; apart from the reliance 
 we shoidd be disposed to place upon his veracity from the very 
 character of his writings. 
 
 This investigation need not be further pursued. Any one who 
 is interested in the subject will be able to detect analogous discre- 
 pancies in the account given of the position and conduct of Paul 
 during his second visit to Jerusalem at the time of the Council. 
 In a work like the Acts, of which the author can only be con- 
 jectured by a double process (it is probable that it was written 
 by a companion of Paul, and, if so, it is probable that Luke 
 was this companion, since he is mentioned by Paul as with him 
 at Pome^), — and whose appearance is so unmarked that we are 
 unable to ascertain the place or the time at which it was first pro- 
 mulgated, — these discrepancies with the only authentic writings 
 of the period, in the cases in which they relate to the same 
 events, compel us to regard it as undeserving of authority 
 throughout. There can be no assignable reason for supposing 
 it to be more correct in those matters upon which it is the 
 only authority, than in those in which a comparison has proved 
 it to be inaccurate. If, with regard to Paul, of whom the 
 writer may be believed to have possessed some authentic re- 
 cords, there are mistakes such as those which we have indicated, 
 there is assuredly no ground for expecting greater accuracy 
 in those portions which relate to Peter and the other Apostles, 
 where he has nothing but tradition for his guide. And an 
 examination of the work confirms this conclusion. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles may be divided into two portions ; 
 the first of which ends with the fifth verse of the sixteenth 
 
 ^ To this Eenan, in his recent work, " Les Apotres," has added a third. " It is not 
 probable that an obscure man like Luke would have been selected by tradition as the 
 author, unless he really was so ! " Who then were the Christians up to the first 
 quarter of the second century excepting the Apostles, who are excluded by the in- 
 troduction to the Gospel, and who were not companions of Paul, that were otherwise 
 than obscure ? And " Luke, the beloved physician," was pointed out as a person of 
 education and ability by his profession. 
 
352 THE JESUS OF HISTORY 
 
 chapter, after which the writer himself appears upon the scene. 
 In the second portion the author, for the most part, assumes 
 the character of a companion of Paul, and a partaker in the scenes 
 which he describes, and it is difficult not to believe that these 
 portions were, at least, based upon a writing originally composed 
 by a person who had been in Paul's company ; while in the first 
 he leaves us to infer that he has gathered his materials, as he 
 avowedly did those of the third Gospel, from a diligent en- 
 quiry into the traditions preserved in the Church. And it 
 appears impossible that any one should compare these two 
 portions without perceiving a corresponding difference in their 
 tone, and in the character of the events described. The ac- 
 count of the travels and labours of Paul, in the last thirteen 
 chapters, is for the most part natural and probable. Not that 
 the miraculous element is even here altogether absent, but it 
 is less obtrusive, and less intimately blended with the history. 
 When Paul is imprisoned, no angel unbars for him the doors 
 of his dungeon ; spiritual intimations come to him by way of 
 dreams, or of internal suggestions ; not by enigmatical visions ; 
 and no false brethren fall down at his feet. He encounters 
 danger and endures or escapes from violence by the aid of his 
 natural faculties, and never employs his miraculous powers to 
 avert or to avenge persecution. It is just such a record of 
 missionary labours and perils and escapes as could be paralleled 
 by many a missionary journal of the last half century. 
 
 In the first portion, however, the case is altogether different. 
 The bodily ascension of Jesus ; the visible descent of the Spirit 
 at Pentecost ; the gift of tongues (so noticeably different from 
 Paul's description of the same gift as manifested among the 
 Corinthians) ; ^ the cure by Peter and John of the man im- 
 potent from his mother's womb ; the death of Ananias and 
 Sapphira ; the bodily removal of Philip by the Spirit ; the 
 account of the conversion of Saul ; the raising of Dorcas from 
 the dead ; the vision to Peter and to CorneKus ; the blindness 
 
 1 1 Cor. xiv., 23. If . . all speak with tongues . . will they not say ye are mad P 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 353 
 
 inflicted upon Elymas by Paul ; and the cure by Paul and 
 Barnabas of tbe impotent man at Lystra : all these belong to 
 the first portion of the Acts, and contrast forcibly with the 
 sober and, for the most part, unexaggerated tone of the re- 
 mainder. It is true that the account of the earthquake at 
 Philippi, and that of the revival of Eutychus, contain a sug- 
 gestion of the miraculous, but in neither case is anything re- 
 lated that may not be naturally explained, if we allow for the 
 pardonable colouring given to his story by a writer who de- 
 scribes his impressions of what he has himself witnessed, or 
 what he has been told by others, with a view rather to give 
 eflfect and animation to his narrative, than to detail the dry 
 literal facts precisely as they occurred.^ And, besides these, 
 there are only the miraculous virtues attributed to the hand- 
 kerchiefs and aprons taken from Paul's body, the cure of the 
 father of Publius, and the escape from the bite of a (supposed) 
 venomous serpent at Malta.^ No reason, as it appears to us, 
 can be assigned for this, excepting that which we have indicated 
 above, — that the latter portion is based upon the writing (or, 
 as may be argued, is the writing) of a companion of Paul, and 
 that the first portion is altogether legendary. 
 
 Besides this, it is equally obvious that the incidents are 
 selected with a purpose. Throughout nearly the whole work 
 the principal figures are those of Peter and Paul ; — representa- 
 tives to the next generation, — the one of Jewish, the other of 
 Gentile Christianity. And it will be seen that the narrative 
 is so arranged as to give the precedence, and, in a certain sense, 
 the superiority to Peter, while bringing Paul as nearly to an 
 equality with him as is consistent with this object. Thus Peter 
 first opens the door to the Gentiles, led by a special divine re- 
 
 ^ "With regard to the case of Eutychus, who can doubt that if the same event were 
 described in a modern missionary tour, the words would have been " fell down from 
 
 the third loft and was taken up for dead ;" and the Eev. Mr. went down and, 
 
 examining him, said, " trouble not yourselves, for the life is in him ?" 
 
 2 The escape of Dr. Livingstone from the "mouth of the lion" is to the full as 
 marvellous as this. 
 
 23 
 
354 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 velatlon, and Paul only carries on, upon a wider scale and in a 
 different sphere, the work that Peter had commenced. And 
 thus Paul is represented as acting at first in accordance with 
 suggestions from others, while Peter has from the beginning 
 a position of independence and even of authority. But, then, 
 the penal infliction of death upon Ananias and Sapphira is 
 paralleled by the infliction of blindness upon Elymas ; the 
 raising of Dorcas by that of Eutychus ; the cure of the im- 
 potent man at the Porch called Beautiful by that of the im- 
 potent man at Lystra. If the prison doors are opened to Peter 
 by an angel, they are opened to Paul by an earthquake ; if Peter 
 and John confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands in 
 Samaria, Paul does the same at Ephesus ; if the shadow of 
 Peter heals the sick, handkerchiefs from the body of Paul have 
 the same power. In fact, the author scarcely relates a single 
 marvel wrought by Peter without also relating one of a similar 
 character wrought by Paul, though those attributed to Peter 
 are almost invariably prior in point of time and more striking 
 in their character. 
 
 This parallelism certainly cannot be accidental. Nor is it 
 easy to suggest any other motive than that of healing existing 
 dissensions associated with the names of Peter and Paul, by de- 
 picting the two as co-operating in the same work and as mani- 
 festing similar powers, though giving throughout the first place 
 to Peter. This was demanded, not alone by the circumstance 
 that Peter had been a favoured companion of Jesus in his life- 
 time, and that he represented the older idea of the Church, but 
 also by reason of his having become the representative of eccle- 
 siastical authority. And while the writer thus provides for the 
 conciliation of actual differences, he suggests a means for the 
 adjustment of all analogous disputes in the future, by exhibiting 
 an authority superior to both of them, — a power to which they 
 accord willing obedience — that of the leaders of the Church 
 assembled in Council under the presidency of the primate 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 355 
 
 It is comparatively unimportant to decide the time at which 
 the work was composed. Whenever written, it would not the 
 less be the work of one who derived the greater part of his 
 materials from hearsay, and who wrote only for the purpose 
 of edification. Such a work is necessarily valueless as an au- 
 thority. It can only be used, if at all, for the purpose of in- 
 dicating the broad general outlines of the prevailing tradition, 
 to which it might be supposed that the writer would adhere. 
 And even in this respect it is doubtful whether any reliance 
 can be placed upon it. If there is anything that appears to 
 be indicated by the early Christian tradition, it would be that 
 Peter was what Paul describes him to have been — the Apostle 
 of the circumcision ; and yet certainly no one would surmise 
 this from the description given of him in the Acts. And if, 
 upon such a point, the author could venture to disregard the 
 tradition of the day, it is scarcely possible to say in what re- 
 respect he can be trusted. 
 
 But, then, the fact that he felt himself at liberty to deal thus 
 freely with tradition, and that his work should have met with 
 acceptance, may be reasonably suggested as indicating a much 
 later date for this composition than that which we have as- 
 signed for the composition of the third Gospel. It may, there- 
 fore, be argued that the Acts were written even after the revolt 
 of Barchocheba, at a time, consequently, in which the great 
 questions that had agitated the early Church had lost much of 
 their first importance, and when it was both practicable and ex- 
 pedient to cast a veil over the dissensions which they had oc- 
 casioned. And this may have been so ; but it is quite con- 
 ceivable that distance of place, the death of all who had been 
 actors in the scenes described, and the dispersion of the com- 
 munity among whom they had occurred were, in this respect, 
 equivalent to remoteness of time. There is no difficulty, con- 
 sequently, in supposing that the composition of the Acts might 
 have followed that of the third Gospel within a few years, and 
 that both were written before the close of the first ten years 
 
356 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 of the second century. And there were circumstances in the 
 position of the Church at that time that might suggest the 
 expediency and desirableness of such a work. 
 
 The destruction of Jerusalem, and the consequent flight of 
 the Christians to Pella, must, of themselves, have diminished the 
 authority which the Church of Jerusalem had at first exercised, 
 and must have contributed j'^et further to increase the relative 
 importance of the Gentile converts. And every succeeding 
 year must have enlarged the proportion of those who had been 
 admitted to the Church by baptism, without having been re- 
 quired to be circumcised. At the same time the Jewish 
 brethren were faithful to their tradition ; and while they 
 practised the rite of circumcision themselves, recognized re- 
 luctantly, or not at all, the claims of these others to the full 
 privileges of brotherhood ; appealing, in support of their views, 
 to the names of Peter and James. There was, consequently, 
 a division that impaired, in some degree, the unity of the 
 Church, and appeared to imply a charge of inferiority against 
 the more numerous body,^ who were represented as disregard- 
 ing the example of Christ and of the Apostles. And by the 
 side of this controversy there was another question, of pro- 
 bably greater practical importance, because it affected the daily 
 life of all the converts from heathenism ; — were they to be 
 permitted to eat things offered to idols ? This latter question 
 had been decided by Paul as being indifferent as a matter of 
 principle, but it had been left undetermined in practice. An 
 opportunity was thus afforded for wide differences ; and there 
 must have been innumerable instances in which the bolder 
 brother was condemned for his supposed laxity of practice by 
 those whom he, in his turn, despised for their scruples. And, 
 in this case also, each party would vindicate its practice by an 
 appeal to the authority of the Apostle whose example it fol- 
 lowed. 
 
 ' In the same manner that the profession of "holy virginity " implies a charge of 
 inferiority against the married brother and sister. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 357 
 
 The existence of these two questions, and the conflict of 
 sentiment and practice among the Apostles themselves which 
 they suggested, needed some harmonizing expedient if the unity 
 of the Church was to be preserved, and if any uniformity of 
 practice was to prevail. And, besides this immediate purpose, 
 the imminence of many other differences then emerging into 
 notice pointed out the necessity of some depository of a power 
 of legislation for the Church as a whole. These appear to have 
 been the practical objects of the writer of the Acts ; and while 
 preserving some isolated traditions that have no connection with 
 them, and while incorporating in his narrative some fragments 
 of a diary apparently kept by a companion of Paul (which 
 appears to have been freely dealt with), it is to the attainment 
 of these objects that the greater part of his work is directed. 
 
 It would, therefore, be idle to attempt to construct a history 
 of the early Church from the materials furnished by the Acts of 
 the Apostles. It is far better at once to confess our ignorance, 
 and to acknowledge that the process of formation by which the 
 dogmas of the Church were elaborated, and the organization of 
 the Church was determined, is one that we are unable to ascertain. 
 All that can be attempted with any hope of success is to call 
 attention to some general considerations, and to fix on one or two 
 points from which we may be enabled to draw inferences more 
 or less probable. 
 
 We have already pointed out the manner in which the death 
 of Jesus would probably affect the feelings of the Jewish people 
 towards his disciples. But, in addition to this, his death, coupled 
 with the belief in his resurrection, would at once change the 
 situation of the Apostles. So long as he lived, they, as his fol- 
 lowers, occupied a position of antagonism to the existing autho- 
 rities, but with his life this antagonism practically terminated. It 
 is true that they looked forward to his reappearance to establish 
 the Kingdom of Heaven. Until that event should occur, how- 
 ever, they were not required to take any active measures. They 
 were not to found the Kingdom ; — at the most, they were to 
 
358 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 announce its approacli. Their attitude was that of patient wait- 
 ing for the manifestation of their Lord ; and their duty in the 
 meantime was to preach Jesus as the Messiah and to admit 
 disciples into their fellowship. Presumably they lived in daily 
 expectation of his coming ; but there was nothing in this to 
 excite the jealousy of the Pharisees or the fears of the Chief 
 Priests. It is true that their belief in the immediate establish- 
 ment of the Kingdom of Heaven was essentially opposed to the 
 principles of the latter, and any inopportune zeal in its pro- 
 clamation might be expected at any moment to provoke some 
 measures of repression. Allowing, however, for mere temporary 
 collisions of this nature, which, besides, were not confined to 
 the believers in Jesus, there was nothing in their avowed 
 principles to endanger their safety. 
 
 These considerations may, perhaps, serve to explain the ap- 
 parently tranquil sojourn of the Apostles in the very city in 
 which their Master had suffered, without requiring us to sup- 
 pose that the Gospel narratives have exaggerated the antagonism 
 between Jesus and the Pharisees. Even supposing the Apostles 
 to have been thoroughly imbued with the spirit of their Master, 
 they would still feel that the changes which he had contemplated 
 were to be postponed till his second coming ; till then they, as 
 Israelites, were to fulfil the law. They, at all events, had no 
 authority to introduce new commandments or to abrogate the 
 old. They might have, and probably they had, gathered from 
 his teaching a clearer perception of the inner meaning of the 
 law ; but while fulfilling its precepts in the spirit they would 
 not violate them in the letter. On the contrary, their faith in 
 the nearness of the time in which that law would be rendered 
 supreme and universal would invest even its minutest details 
 with importance. They would, consequently, be "zealous for 
 the law," and thus would secure the respect of the populace, and 
 might even be, to some extent, favourably regarded by the popular 
 leaders. They were a distinct body, but not under this aspect 
 aggressive. They maintained their own practices, but did not 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 359 
 
 assail those of others. Their sole point of difference with their 
 fellow-countrymen, — their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, — was 
 one that, under the circumstances, woidd have but little practical 
 bearing. All alike were waiting for the manifestation of the 
 Son of Man, and all alike would be prepared to welcome whom- 
 soever should appear in that character ; — coming in the clouds 
 of heaven, and sending his angels to summon the elect, and to 
 subdue and punish his and their enemies. 
 
 And this also accounts for their continued stay in Jerusalem. 
 It might at first sight have appeared natural that they should 
 have returned to their native province of Gfalilee; but Jeru- 
 salem was to be the place of the appearance of the Son of Man, 
 and the seat of his Kingdom ; it behoved them, therefore, to 
 be ready on the spot to welcome his coming and to share his 
 triumph.^ Had they regarded the Kingdom that Jesus was to 
 establish as a spiritual dominion merely, or as anything but 
 that re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel foretold by the 
 prophets, there could have been no reason why they should 
 not have returned to their own homes. All places under that 
 aspect would have been indifferent to them, as, in view of the 
 expected bliss of heaven, they are to the Christian. As, how- 
 ever, Jesus was to return and reign in Jerusalem, and as his 
 appearance might be looked for at any moment, that city alone 
 became their appropriate residence. And there it is not im- 
 probable that those who survived continued to remain, with the 
 exception of occasional journeys, at least until Jerusalem was 
 girt by the legions of Yespasian. 
 
 Perhaps even now some trace of the successive changes in 
 the feelings of the disciples, whilst maintaining this attitude of 
 expectation in presence of the unlooked-for delay in the fulfil- 
 ment of their hopes, may be found in the varied and somewhat 
 inconsistent sajdngs attributed to Jesus on the subject of his 
 
 1 "WTien the recollection of the real character of the Messianic hopes of the 
 Apostles had been lost, their stay in Jerusalem appeared inexplicable ; — and then an 
 assumed command of Jesus that they should remain there for twelve years was in- 
 Tented to account for it. — Euseb. H. E. B. V., c. 18. 
 
360 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 second coining, and in the parables by wbicb tbe duties of 
 watchfulness and fidelity are enforced. The first stage, after 
 their original enthusiasm had begun to abate, would be that of 
 momentary expectation, such as is indicated by the comparison 
 of the coming of the Son of Man, in its suddenness and unex- 
 pectedness, to the flood in the days of Noe, and by the following 
 injunction to watchfulness ; and, perhaps, also by the parable of 
 the ten virgins, for they had only to wait and be ready. At 
 any time the Lord might come, and the slothful and unpre- 
 pared might be excluded, and they who were watching be 
 admitted into his Kingdom. Then, as time wore on — as years 
 even passed by and still the Lord had not appeared — there 
 would be such a feeling as is indicated by the apologue of the 
 evil servant, and the parable of the talents entrusted to his 
 servants by the man who journeyed into a far country. Their 
 Lord " delayed his coming," and many would make that a 
 protest for asserting that it would never arrive ; — but though 
 postponed it was not less certain, and while the faithful would 
 receive an appropriate reward, those who had abused their 
 opportunities or had been disloyal to their trust would incur 
 a fitting punishment. And then, again, as hope began almost 
 to wax faint, and it might even seem as though their faith 
 had been vain, the convulsions that shook the empire, the 
 destruction that menaced Jerusalem, and the eager expectation 
 of the immediate coming of the Messiah by which the whole 
 Jewish nation was animated and which led them to welcome 
 almost any claimant to the title, appeared to be the evident 
 signs of the coming of Jesus, and are represented as such in 
 the definite prediction assigned to him. And those of the 
 disciples who could recognize none of these various claimants 
 retired from the holy city to pass in some place of security 
 the brief interval that yet separated them from their returning 
 Lord.^ 
 
 ^ It is noticeable that none of the sayings attributed to Jesus before his crucifixion 
 imply any obligation to preach th« Gospel to the Gentiles. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 361 
 
 It would be interesting, if it were possible, to know to what 
 actual facts the legend of the martyrdom of Stephen and of the 
 subsequent dispersion of the brethren correspond. That it 
 cannot be accepted as historical in its actual form is clear, if 
 only from the want of correspondence between the offence of 
 which he was accused and the speech that he makes in his 
 defence ; and it is probable that the manner in which Paul 
 is introduced is not without a conscious purpose in reference to 
 subsequent controversies. "Was there a liberal .element among 
 the disciples originally attracted by the preaching of the 
 Apostles ; a party that anticipated the later teaching of Paul, 
 and the leader of which encountered the fate that the other so 
 narrowly escaped ? And if so, what were the relations between 
 that party and the Apostles, and how did it happen that the 
 latter could remain in favour with the people of Jerusalem after 
 a persecution upon such grounds, directed against the body of 
 which they were the head, as we see from the Epistle to the 
 Galatians that they did ? These are questions which we may 
 state but cannot fidly answer, and the examination of which 
 would lead us beyond our present purpose, which is not to 
 trace the history of the Church, but the development of the 
 idea of the nature of Jesus. 
 
 As we have already pointed out, the earliest in point of date of 
 the writings of which the New Testament is composed are some 
 of the Epistles of Paul — those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and 
 Eomans ; and, if authentic, those to the Thessalonians, though 
 there is great doubt with regard to the second of these. Nearly 
 contemporaneous with the latest of these was, probably, the 
 original of the first Gospel, which we believe to be represented 
 with an approach to accuracy in the copy we possess. The 
 latter may fairly be supposed to represent the views of the 
 companions of Jesus, and was almost certainly current in the 
 Church at Jerusalem, while the Epistles of Paul were written 
 by a person who had never seen Jesus, and who, from his own 
 account, kept himself studiously outside the circle of Christian 
 
362 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 tradition.^ It will be instructive, then, to compare the view 
 given of the person and nature of Jesus in the writings of the 
 two ; of the companion and witness on the one hand, and on 
 the other of the late converted disciple who had never seen 
 Jesus until he was " revealed in him." In the former we see 
 a man, wise, truthful, affectionate, a prophet, a teacher of 
 righteousness, a worker of miracles, — " the King of the Jews," 
 — devoting his life to the accomplishment of his purpose, dying 
 because he is rejected by those who had once hailed him as their 
 ruler, and afterwards rising from the dead. In the latter the 
 human elements in the life of Jesus, his teaching, his miracles, 
 his claim to be the King of the Jews, are practically ignored. 
 With Paul it is not the Man Jesus, but the risen Christ, that 
 is the subject of his preaching, and is invested with attributes 
 of which we find no hint in the Gospel. The humanity of 
 Jesus is not denied. It is even asserted ; but it is not under 
 his human aspect that Paul habitually conceives or exhibits 
 him. He is the Word of God — the Wisdom of God ; the Son 
 of God. He has made the world ; he will judge the world. 
 " God is in him reconciling the world unto himself." And he 
 is the second Adam, the typical head of the new order of things 
 to be inaugurated at his coming, as Adam was of the old order 
 of things, which then is to have an end. 
 
 It is needless to inquire whether it would have been possible 
 for a person who had actually seen Jesus subjected to all 
 the conditions of humanity ; — wearied with travel and needing 
 repose ; faint with hunger and needing food ; repelled by those 
 to whom he addressed himself and needing sympathy ; grieving 
 for the actual or anticipated sorrows of his countrymen ; failing 
 in the enterprise which he had undertaken, and compelled to 
 
 1 This is not only distinctly asserted, Gal. i., 11, 12, but Paul takes pains to ex- 
 clude every possible ground upon which it might be suggested that his views were 
 not original ; by his words, " I conferred not with flesh and blood;" by his care to 
 show that he was only at Jerusalem for a fortnight before entering on his mission, 
 and then only saw Peter, and, possibly James ; and by his statement that subse- 
 quently he communicated the Gospel that he taught to the leaders of the Church. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 363 
 
 retreat before the hostility which he had provoked ; betrayed 
 where he had reposed confidence, and rejected by those whom 
 he had claimed as his subjects, — to have entertained such a view 
 of his nature as did Paul. We see that in fact those who had 
 been the companions of Jesus, as a man, dwelt exclusively upon 
 his human character, and that it was among those who had never 
 seen him alive that the teachers were found who invested him at 
 first with divine attributes and ultimately with a divine nature. 
 There may be nothing in the first two Gospels necessarily in- 
 consistent with this view; but certainly no one would have 
 dreamed of deducing such conclusions from them if they had 
 stood alone.^ 
 
 Probably there was in this respect a progress in the mind of 
 Paul himself. Assuming the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
 and the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians 
 to have been written by him, the former would probably be the 
 earliest, and the latter certainly among the latest, of all his 
 writings that have come down to us. And there is a noticeable 
 difierence between the qualities and functions ascribed to Jesus 
 in the former and in the latter. In the first-named he is " the 
 Lord Jesus," *' the Lord Jesus Christ," " the Son of God, whom 
 God raised from the dead,'' who " died for our sins," and 
 " delivers us from the wrath to come." In the last " God 
 created all things by Christ Jesus," he was " in the form of 
 God," but took upon himself " the form of a slave," wherefore 
 God hath exalted him and hath given him a name that is above 
 every name. He is " the image of the invisible God," " the 
 first-born of every creature," " all things were created by him 
 
 ^ The above conclusion would be strongly confirmed by a comparison of the attri- 
 butes ascribed to Jesus in the Epistle of James and the First Epistle of Peter with 
 those ascribed to him by Paul. There is so much doubt, however, attaching to both 
 of these, that no argument can be fairly based upon them with regard to the opinions 
 of the Apostles whose names they bear. There is not a single expression in either 
 that appears to indicate a personal acquaintance with Jesus ; and there are no argu- 
 ments for their authenticity but the ob\-iously unreliable circumstance that they are 
 written in the names of the Apostles ; and the assiimed concuiTence of the early 
 Church in accepting them, which is negatived by the facts. 
 
364 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 and for him." He is "before all things" and "by him all 
 things subsist," " in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily, and he sits at the right hand of God."^ Such a change 
 was inevitable. It is only in sterile soils that there is no 
 perceptible growth. In a soul so fertile as that of Paul it was 
 impossible that there should not have been development and 
 progress. The one object of his contemplation was Jesus ; in 
 himself, in relation to the character which he filled, and the 
 work which he was to accomplish. From Jesus everything that 
 Paul taught derived its significance and value, and to Jesus all 
 the aspirations that Paul cherished for himself and encouraged in 
 others, tended as their centre and object. It was Jesus who by 
 his death had opened to the Gentiles also an entrance into the 
 kingdom of Heaven. It was Jesus who in his second coming 
 would establish that kingdom, and would call all who believed 
 in him to share its blessings. It was Jesus who had shown 
 himself to Paul to stop him in his career of persecution, and it 
 was Jesus who was in a brief space to be revealed in the clouds 
 of heaven, and whom Paul and the rest of the brethren were to 
 meet in the air. The invariable result of the concentration of 
 the attention upon any one topic is that the subject assumes a 
 gradually increasing importance, exhibits new and unexpected 
 relations, and displays new properties. And this is equally the 
 case whether the subject of contemplation be spiritual and ideal, 
 or real and material. We need feel no surprise, therefore, that 
 year by year the idea that Paul had formed of Jesus should 
 acquire greater elevation and depth. Still less can we wonder 
 that in letters addressed to churches which he had founded, or 
 with which he had long maintained an afiectionate intercourse, 
 intended to reclaim them from errors into which they were 
 lapsing, or to excite them to exhibit conduct worthy of their 
 profession, he should have employed the loftiest expressions in 
 reference to the object of his and their common faith and love; 
 
 1 "We shall have afterwards to indicate the source of many of these representa- 
 tions. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 365 
 
 and to the source of the union that existed between them and 
 the inspirer of the hopes which they all equally cherished. 
 
 "We may, indeed, doubt how far these expressions are to be 
 regarded as intended to set forth in definite terms the precise 
 view that Paul had formed of the nature of Jesus. Bather, 
 perhaps, it may be accepted as certain that they are only the 
 phrases in which a full mind struggles to convey ideas to which 
 it feels that conception and language are alike unequal ; ideas 
 that Paul himself was as far from realizing under any logical 
 category, as he was from expressing with philosophical definite- 
 ness. The letters that contained these expressions were addressed 
 to men " unlearned and ignorant," and were written with a 
 practical object, bearing rather upon conduct than dogma. The 
 phrases too that we have cited for the most part come in as it 
 were incidentally, because it was impossible that Paul should 
 write to the brethren upon any subject without associating it 
 with Christ Jesus. If, however, the later epistles are genuine, 
 as on the whole is probable, it would certainly appear that 
 Paul elevated Jesus to a rank only inferior to that of God 
 himself; but no remoter inferences can justly be drawn from 
 the form of particular expressions. 
 
 Viewed under this aspect, there appears to be a measure of 
 truth in the claim that is sometimes made on behalf of Paul, 
 that he was the real founder of Christianity, though this claim 
 must be largely shared by the unknown author of the fourth 
 Gospel. The difference between the two, thus viewed, appears 
 to be that Paul anticipated the course of the events of which, 
 the fourth Gospel is the product. He practically realized the 
 conditions necessary for the universal diflfusion of Christianity. 
 He first gave it the form that fitted it to become the religion of 
 humanity, instead of a mere development of Judaism. And he 
 did this by raising Jesus from the position of the King of the 
 Jews to that of a pre-existent being who had been invested 
 with divine attributes in order to their manifestation to man- 
 kind, and who embodied, to the spiritual apprehension of his 
 
366 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 followers, the wisdom, power, and love of God, the universal 
 Father. It was not the humble preacher of the Lake of Galilee, - 
 or the Son of David, who claimed, at the hand of the Jews, to 
 be recognized as their King, or even the worker of miracles 
 proving his divine mission by the exhibition of divine power, 
 whom Paul sets forth in his Ejjistles. To have done this would 
 have been to have known Christ after the flesh ; worse, it would 
 have been to circumscribe him within the limits of a wornout 
 creed, which had proclaimed its own inability to regenerate the 
 world by the repulsion which it everywhere excited. Such a por- 
 traiture might have been appropriate in one who contemplated 
 a restoration of the Jewish theocracy — the re- establishment of 
 the Kingdom of David at Jerusalem under the rule of the Son 
 of Man, and the perpetual obligation of the law. But to Paul, 
 who regarded the abrogation of the old economy as a necessary 
 preliminary to the accomplishment of the work of Jesus, such 
 a view would have been altogether inadequate. To carry out 
 the prophecies, as the Jews understood .them, a mere descendant 
 of David, suitably endowed, might be sufficient. To abrogate 
 the law, and thus to open the Kingdom of Heaven upon equal 
 terms to Jew and Gentile — to introduce a new economy that 
 should supersede the old by rendering it superfluous — to break 
 down the middle wall of partition that had hitherto confined 
 the knowledge and worship and favour of the one true God 
 to a small portion of his children,, would require a being as far 
 superior to the Jewish Lawgiver as he was superior to ordinary 
 mortals ; or rather, to employ the imagery of Paul, as far 
 superior to the angels, through whose ministry the law was 
 received, as they were to men. The enlarged conception that 
 Paul had formed of the mission of Jesus necessitated an en- 
 larged conception of his nature. And these two ideas would 
 inevitably act and react the one upon the other, until the latter 
 had reached the utmost limit that the strict monotheism of Paul 
 allowed it to assume. 
 
 The view that Paul entertained of the nature of Jesus may, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 367 
 
 consequently, be regarded as self-educed, and as, in a great 
 measure, peculiar to himself. It flowed mainly, if not entirely, 
 from the conception which he had formed of the object of his 
 mission. And this latter would seem to have been the result 
 partly of his own solitary musing during the period of retire- 
 ment in which he prepared himself for the task which he was 
 about to undertake, and partly of his practical dealings with 
 the Gentile world, and of the opposition he encoimtered from 
 Jews and Jewish Christians. 
 
 It would be interesting, if it were possible, to know the circum- 
 stances that attended his conversion, and still more to be able to 
 trace the mental process through which he passed, in his change 
 from the most rigid exclusiveness to the widest liberalism. His 
 own account given in the Epistle to the Galatians is, however, 
 only that " it pleased God to reveal his Son in him that he 
 might preach him among the Gentiles." And we may, per- 
 haps, gather from his claim to have seen Jesus that there was 
 some visual appearance connected with this revelation. Appar- 
 ently he attached little importance to the accessories of the 
 incident. The account given in the Acts of the Apostles is 
 probably so far correct that it was on a journey to Damascus 
 for the purpose of taking further action against the fol- 
 lowers of Jesus, that something occurred to arrest his pro- 
 ceedings, which he and the brethren afterwards regarded as 
 miraculous. And it is very probable that the occurrence, 
 whatever it might be, was connected with or occasioned some 
 bodily illness. This view appears to be partly corroborated by 
 the expression, " returned again into Damascus," which implies 
 that Damascus had been the place at which he had arrived after 
 the vision, and by the immediately preceding statement that he 
 " had persecuted the Church of God beyond measure." It is, 
 however, almost certain that the details of the occurrence have 
 been freely dealt with by the author, and possibly not without 
 a reference to the claim of Paul to be an Apostle, founded upon 
 his having seen the Lord. The account of the light, the words, 
 
368 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 the fall from tlie horse, and tlie subsequent blindness, is so 
 arranged as almost to exclude the idea of any bodily appearance 
 of Jesus at this time, and there is no mention of any other 
 occasion upon which such an appearance can be supposed to 
 have occurred.^ 
 
 Whatever might have been the nature of the revelation, it 
 is certain, unless we reject Paul's own statement, that its 
 first efiect was not to lead him to seek instruction from the 
 brethren as to the life or the doctrine of Jesus, but to seek in 
 solitude an opportunity of communion with his own heart and 
 with God. For this purpose he retired to Arabia, and his 
 language would seem to imply that it was at any rate before 
 his return from that place that his views as to the nature of the 
 duties which he was to discharge and the field in which he was to 
 labour were matured. There is nothing to indicate the duration 
 of his residence in Arabia. Possibly it endured during the 
 greater part of the three years that elapsed before his visit to 
 Jerusalem, for the tone of his short narrative in the Galatians 
 appears scarcely consistent with any lengthened or habitual 
 preaching of the Gospel before that visit. At Jerusalem he 
 sees Peter and James, but he denies having received from them 
 the doctrines that he taught. On the contrary, at a subsequent 
 visit, it is he who communicates to those who are of reputation 
 in the Church the Gospel that he preached ; apparently in order 
 that it might receive their approval. And the ultimate result 
 was that they recognized the reality of his mission to the 
 Gentiles, and, presumably, admitted the appropriateness of his 
 
 ^ There is always a risk of error in attributing a purpose to an author founded upon 
 mere omissions. They may arise from temporary forgetfulness ; or the incidents 
 omitted may be so familiar to his readers and to himself as to be apparently conveyed 
 by the language he uses. It is, however, difficult to suppose that the persistent 
 omission of all notice of an actual appearance of Jesus, and the reference to the voice 
 as the only means of communication, could have been unintentional or dictated by 
 any other motive than that of implicitly negativing Paul's claim. And this is con- 
 firmed by the circumstance that Paul is never in the Acts spoken of as one of the 
 Apostles. In the description of the Council at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas are 
 pointedly distinguished from the Apostles. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTOKY. 369 
 
 doctrine to his field of labour. Upon this they gave him the 
 right hand of fellowship and sanctioned his preaching, but 
 without adding to or modifying his previous views. 
 
 This statement implies that there was some difference be- 
 tween the Gospel as preached by Paid and that preached by 
 the older Apostles. The chief practical distinction between the 
 two no doubt related to the question of circumcision, but it is 
 probable that this was the exponent of deeper doctrinal dif- 
 ferences ; and that these were connected with his views re- 
 specting Jesus. We know that when those Jewish Christians 
 who preserved the traditions of the brethren at Jerusalem ulti- 
 mately separated from the Gentile majority who then constituted 
 " the Church," one of the grounds of that separation was the 
 lower view taken by the former with regard to the person of 
 Jesus, It is consequently possible that the germs of this dif- 
 ference may have existed from the earliest times, and that they 
 may have been among the points in which the doctrines taught 
 by Paul were considered as unsound or at least exaggerated. 
 
 The difference thus suggested must not, however, be regarded 
 as absolute, since we see in the book of Revelations that another 
 class of feelings led the eminently Jewish author of that work 
 to ascribe to Jesus attributes in some respects as exalted and in 
 some even identical with those which we have seen had been 
 ascribed to him by Paul. The similarity in this respect is in- 
 deed the more noticeable because it is scarcely possible to doubt 
 that the introduction of the work is expressly directed against 
 Paul and his followers.^ It seems clear on the whole that the 
 
 1 They that " say they are Jews, and are not ; " " that they are Apostles, and are 
 not," can scarcely be referred to any other than Paul. At least, we know that his 
 claims in both respects were disputed in the early Church ; and if he is not the person 
 referred to, we cannot even guess who it was. Those, too, who teach to eat things 
 sacrificed unto idols can scarcely be any others than Paul and his followers. And it 
 is at the least a singular coincidence that the Church of Thyatira should be warned 
 against the woman Jezebel, who teaches " to eat things sacrificed into idols " (Rev. u., 
 20, et seq.), and that tradition should have preserved the name of a woman of Thyatira 
 who was a devoted follower of Paul (Acts xvi., U) . If the Revelations had been rejected 
 from the Canon by the Western, as it was nearly by the Eastern Church, and as it was 
 subsequently by Luther, no one would have ever doubted, even, that Paul was meant. 
 
 24 
 
370 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Being like to the Son of Man seen in the midst of the Seven 
 Golden Candlesticks is Jesus, though his personality is imper- 
 fectly preserved. He, however, is the first and the last ; he 
 liveth and was dead, and is alive for evermore^ — he is the Son 
 of God — ^he has the keys of Hades and of death — and he is the 
 beginning of the creation of God : and though he is not indeed 
 the Word of God, yet " his name shall be called the Word of 
 God." These coincidences of idea and expression seem to imply 
 either that the author of the Book of Revelations and Paul drew 
 from a common source, or that such views were familiar in the 
 circles in which they moved and for which they wrote. And 
 the former at least was in some degree the case. In the Book 
 of Enoch, with which both writers were certainly familiar, and 
 the influence of which is clearly to be traced in almost every 
 chapter of the Apocalypse, the coming one, the Messiah, is de- 
 scribed as the Judge of the World — the Son of Man — the Son 
 of God — having all righteousness — eternal in glory — reigning 
 with God — existing before the creation, and predestined to reign 
 over all things.^ And in spite of the pervading difference of 
 thought and of feeling between the author of the Revelations 
 and Paul ; the latter regarding Jesus as the mediator whose 
 essential functions it was to reconcile the world, especially the 
 Gentile world, to God, and the former as the destined avenger 
 of the wrongs of the Saints ( = the holy ones, as all Jews are by 
 birth and circumcision), and the head of an earthly kingdom to 
 be founded on the ruins of all existing powers — they were both 
 led by the greatness of the functions which they ascribed to 
 JesuS, and of the work which he was to perform, to invest his 
 person with the highest attributes of created existence. 
 
 If, then, turning from the Apocalypse, which is the work 
 of an ardent imagination, stimulated on the one hand by the 
 atrocigua cruelties recently practised upon the Christians at 
 
 ' Comp. Rom. vi., 9, " Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more," etc. 
 - Kalisch, Gen. 165, cited in Colenso's Pentateuch and Joshua. Part IV., pp. 
 311, 312. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTOKY. 6ii 
 
 Rome, and by the threatened destruction of the holy city al- 
 ready environed by the forces of the empire, and on the other 
 by the laxity and evil practices that, from the writer's stand- 
 point, were threatening to invade the Church itself, we recur 
 to the narratives of the life of Jesus, and of the history of the 
 early Church, we see how great is the difference between their 
 language and that which we have above cited from Paul. 
 Perhaps the most instructive illustration of this difference is 
 to be found in the speeches attributed to him and to Peter in 
 the Acts of the Apostles. Thus, in those attributed to Peter, 
 we find " the Lord Jesus " (i., 21), "Jesus of Nazareth ; a man 
 approved by God, by miracles and wonders and signs which 
 God did by him ;" — " whom God hath raised up ;" — " he is by 
 the right hand of God exalted, and having received of God the 
 promise of the Holy Spirit " he imparts it to others. " God 
 hath made him both Lord and Christ " (ii., 22, 33, 36). "He is 
 the holy and just one — the leader of life."^ "God raised up his 
 child Jesus" (iii., 14, 15, 26). "Jesus Christ of jN'azareth, 
 whom the rulers crucified, and whom God raised from the 
 dead;"— "the Christ ;"—" Jesus, the holy child of God" (iv., 
 10, 26, 27, 30). "Jesus is called to be a Prince and a Saviour, 
 to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins" (v., 31). 
 "He is Lord of all;"^ "He went about doing good, for God 
 was with him" (x., 36, 39). "By his love believers are to be 
 saved " (xv., 11). In all this there is no hint of pre-existence, 
 or of any inherent dignity or power. Whatever Jesus is arises 
 not from himself, but comes by the direct gift of God. And 
 he is throughout exhibited as a man, — pre-eminently endowed 
 and exalted, but still a man. The picture possesses what 
 may be termed a dramatic propriety, for it would have been 
 in the highest degree inconsistent that, within a few days after 
 
 ^ Apparently, from the context, referring to his being the first raised from the dead, 
 and thus being the leader apxvyos — of those that should thereafter be raised. 
 
 - This is probably an interpolation by some pious Christian of later date. It breaks 
 the thread of the discourse, and is scarcely consistent with the other speeches attributed 
 to Peter, or with the views of the author of the work. 
 
372 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 actual communion witli the living Jesus, Peter should have 
 spoken of him as the Logos, as the incarnate Word, or even 
 as pre-existent and antedating all creation, to those who had 
 themselves witnessed his execution as a criminal. And among 
 his hearers such representations would have excited, not faith, 
 but aversion and incredulity. 
 
 Even with Paul, the language that he is represented 
 as employing with regard to Jesus is substantially the 
 same with that ascribed to Peter. " Jesus is a Saviour unto 
 Israel ; " " God raised him from the dead ; " " through him is 
 preached forgiveness of sins;" and "by him all that believe 
 may be justified from all things from which they coiJd not be 
 justified by the law of Moses " (xiii., 24, 38, 39). "'Jesus is 
 the Christ " (xv., 3) ; " the man by whom God is to judge the 
 world " (31). And Paul is represented as summing up the 
 whole of his preaching in the phrase, " Repentance to God and 
 faith in our Lord Jesus Christ " (xx,, 21). It may perhaps be 
 admitted that there is no absolute incompatibility between the 
 expressions thus ascribed to Paul and those that he employs in 
 his own writings — that he might have spoken of Jesus as he is 
 represented in the Acts, and yet have conceived of his character 
 under the aspect in which it is presented in the Epistles ; but, 
 certainly, no one from the former could have inferred the latter. 
 And it is impossible but that in some of his public discourses, 
 especially in those addressed to the brethren, Paul should have 
 given utterance to those loftier views of the nature of Jesus 
 which find expression on every occasion, in season and out of 
 season, in his letters. The fact that no such expressions are 
 attributed to him can therefore only be ascribed to the circum- 
 stance that such views were not shared by the author of the 
 Acts, or by the circle for which he was writing. 
 
 And this inference will be confirmed by a perusal of the first 
 three Gospels. The whole tenor of these is to represent Jesus as 
 a man, informed indeed by the Spirit of God, invested with 
 authority to instruct and reprove, but neither assuming nor 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 373 
 
 supposed to possess any powers but such as liad been imparted 
 to him. He claims to be the Son of God, and the Son of Man. 
 The former title, however, implies only a spiritual relationship, 
 such as in a degree belongs to all that do the will of the Father. 
 The latter has a double meaning ; sometimes referring to the 
 lowness of his condition, and sometimes appearing to assert a 
 claim to be the coming Ruler whom Daniel had predicted under 
 that title. But there is not one phrase that asserts his divinity 
 or pre-existence. Whether as the son of Joseph and Mary, 
 receiving the gift of the Divine Spirit at his baptism, as appears 
 from the genealogies to have been the earliest form of the 
 legend, or as the Son of Mary supernaturally " conceived by 
 the power of the Holy Ghost," his existence is throughout 
 assumed to have commenced with his human life. The in- 
 cidents of his life are all human, according to the ideas of the 
 age. And there is nothing attributed to him in these Gospels, 
 even to the raising of the dead, which it was not believed by 
 the disciples of the next century to have been performed by 
 Peter and Paul ; nay, to have been performed habitually by 
 all the more eminent of the saints and martyrs.^ 
 
 It is not, perhaps, easy completely to account for this differ- 
 ence. So far as the Gospels are concerned it is probably owing 
 to the circumstances that they represent the early tradition of 
 the Church, and are confined within its limits. In the Acts, 
 however, it is difficult to suppose that the omission of all 
 reference to the higher conceptions of the nature of Jesus, or 
 more especially their exclusion from the speeches of Paul, was 
 
 ^ Excepting, possibly, the miraculous feedings of the five thousand and four thousand, 
 and some of the miracles recorded come near to these. The Rev. J. H. (now Father) 
 Newman, in his "Essay on the Miracles recorded in Ecclesiastical History," appears 
 to parallel these by the alleged multiplication of the true cross. As an (assumed) 
 physical fact there is, no doubt, a resemblance, but the comparison appears to ignore 
 the essential feature of the two cases ; the one being caused by a miraculous power 
 in Jesus, the other, apparently, by a miraculous x-irtue in the wood. At least, ^ve have 
 never seen it argued that every treasurer of a convent who possessed a piece of the 
 true cross, and had sold half of that piece, still retained all, or had the power of 
 creating new matter which should, at the same time, be the old. 
 
374 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 not intentional. But the real motive of the ■writer may have 
 been a desire to keep out of sight mere speculative notions, 
 having no bearing upon the practical questions that occupied 
 his attention, and upon which difierences might at that time be 
 allowed to exist without aifecting the unity of the Church. 
 
 It was not, in fact, until the Evangelical history passed alto- 
 gether out of the limits of Judaism that the more elevated views 
 of the nature of Jesus were embodied in a narrative form in the 
 fourth Gospel. The picture drawn in the previous Gospels was 
 too narrow and local to supply a basis for the wider conceptions 
 that necessarily accompanied the expansion of the Church, and 
 the growing preponderance of Gentile converts. It was neces- 
 sary that the historical should be made to correspond with the 
 ideal Jesus, and that his life on earth should manifest some 
 harmony with the new dignity ascribed to him in heaven. The 
 representations that had sufficed for the disciples in Jerusalem, 
 while waiting for the return of their risen Lord to restore the 
 kingdom to Israel, and which with more or less of modification 
 had been adopted in the Gospels designed for the use of early 
 Gentile converts, was no longer adequate. And this was not 
 all. As every year lessened the prospect of the return of Jesus 
 in the flesh, the ideas that had been associated with that expec- 
 tation gradually lost their hold upon the popular imagination, 
 and were replaced by others more suitable to the altered position 
 which the Church was beginning to occupy. The whole of the 
 generation that had listened to his doctrine, or had witnessed the 
 wonders that he wrought, had died — and the literal fulfilment 
 of his reported promise had therefore become impossible. And 
 the Jews, whose king he had claimed to be, and whose kingdom 
 he was to restore, had by their frantic excesses directed against 
 lieathen and Christian alike, rendered the very name of Jew 
 odious, and had made it the interest and the wish of the more 
 advanced Christians to mark in an emphatic manner the essen- 
 tial distinction between them. 
 
 The peculiarities of the fourtli Gospel, accordingly, are all 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 375 
 
 connected witli these questions. It exalts the person of Jesus : 
 it substitutes a spiritual for a material view of the objects which 
 he came to accomplish ; — the "many mansions" in which he is to 
 prepare a place for his followers, for " the new Jerusalem let 
 down" upon earth from heaven ; and the presence of the Para- 
 clete in the hearts of his disciples, for the wine that he was to 
 drink new with them in the Kingdom of his Father ; and it 
 marks the intrinsic Disposition between Christianity and Judaism, 
 by exhibiting a similar opposition between Jesus and the Jews 
 at every stage of his career from the very commencement. 
 Jesus is the Logos, — the Word, — not, indeed, God, in the strict 
 theological sense, but with God from the beginning, and himself 
 divine.^ " By him all things were made." " He is the light 
 that came into the world." He is " made flesh," and manifests 
 his glory as that of the only begotten Son of the Father, to those 
 whom he finds worthy. Before Abraham's time he is, and he 
 is one with the Father. Obviously the dogma has made, in 
 this respect, a great advance in the interval between the com- 
 position of the first Gospel and that of the fourth. Again, he 
 comes to his own, the Jews, his kindred according to the flesh ; 
 but his own receive him not. They are dark and cannot com- 
 prehend his light ; children of lies and cannot appreciate his 
 truth. With them his relations are throughout antagonistic, 
 for they neither understand his teaching nor are convinced by 
 his miracles. With the exception of his few immediate friends 
 and followers, the only persons by whom his character is re- 
 cognized are the schismatic Samaritans, and (apparently) some 
 Greeks who are brought to him during his last visit to Jerusalem. 
 The nation repudiates him, and he, in his turn, renounces all 
 kinship with them. He is in a special sense the Son of God, 
 and does his works. They are the children of the devil — 
 the adversary — and his works they do. Here and there, no 
 doubt, are indications of popularity produced by some miracle, 
 but they are transient, and in all cases followed by a reac- 
 
 ^ dfos, not 6 deos. 
 
376 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 tion.^ And they do not affect the permanent and, so to speak, 
 normal hostility with which he and the Jews mutually regard 
 each other. 
 
 By the side of these two aspects of the character of Jesus, in 
 itself and in relation to the Jews, is the third to which we have 
 adverted, in relation to his mission. Under this aspect, he is the 
 vine in whom believers are grafted ; — the door by which alone 
 an entrance is to be obtained into the fold ; — the true shepherd, 
 who not only leads his flock tenderly and safely, but even lays 
 down his life for them ; — the bread that cometh down from 
 heaven, of which if believers partake, they shall share his life ; 
 — the water, of which if any man drinks, it shall be in him a 
 well of water springing up unto everlasting life ; — the mani- 
 festation upon earth of the Father in heaven, so that whoever 
 has seen him has seen the Father. He is to be lifted up as was 
 the serpent of old, and then will draw all men unto him. He 
 goes to his Father, partly in order that he may prepare a place 
 in the heavenly mansions for those whom he leaves behind him 
 upon earth, and partly as the necessary condition of the coming 
 of the Comforter. So that by his departure he provides at once 
 for the support and consolation of the faithful in this life, and 
 for their reception into heaven when that life shall have ended. 
 He comes, not to found a kingdom, but to bear witness of the 
 truth. He is a King, but his Kingdom is not of this world. 
 And by faith and love the disciples may enter into an union 
 with himself comparable to that which he sustains to the 
 Father. And this is the ultimate purpose of his manifestation 
 in the flesh. 
 
 It will be observed that there is here scarcely any reference 
 to the practical virtues, or any command to obey the precepts of 
 the law. The stand-point of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel is 
 different and, in some respects, higher than this. For the faith 
 and love required, and the guidance promised, may be assumed 
 to involve as a necessary consequence the performance of all 
 ^ Produced in general by some "hard saying" on his part. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 377 
 
 relative duties, whether towards God or towards man ; and, 
 no doubt, this is often the case. But it is, perhaps, quite as 
 frequent a result that the believer, absorbed in these loftier 
 speculations, regards as trivial and insignificant the common 
 tasks of the daily round of life, and is reluctant to leave " the 
 still air of delightful contemplation " for the " cumbering " 
 duties of active virtue. And it is significant that in one of 
 the few places in which doing is enjoined, the reward promised 
 is not safety but knowledge — " He shall know of the doctrine." 
 And conversely, the "work of God" is faith, "that they be- 
 lieve in him that God hath sent." 
 
 It only remains that we attempt to indicate the operation of 
 influences external to the Church upon the development of this 
 aspect of the dogma. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA — INFLUENCE FROM WITHOUT. 
 
 During the life of Jesus the movement that he originated 
 was confined within the limits of Palestine, and his mission and 
 character were necessarily regarded from a Jewish point of 
 view. The journey to the coast of Tyre and Sidon, under what- 
 ever light it may be regarded, was not marked by any attempt 
 at instruction or proselytism. And even if it were possible to 
 accept as historical the account given by the fourth Gospel of 
 the teaching in Samaria, the statement we have made would 
 scarcely require to be qualified, since the fundamental religious 
 conceptions of the Samaritans were the same as those of the Jews. 
 
 When, however, after his death the good news of the king- 
 dom was preached to the Gentiles, and all men were invited by 
 repentance and faith to qualify themselves to become its citizens, 
 the case was to a certain extent changed. The conceptions that 
 had satisfied the Jew required to be modified in order that they 
 might prove acceptable to the Gentile. Or if this should be 
 disputed, it is at least certain, even from the received point of 
 view, that the terms of admission to the privileges of the king- 
 dom as understood among the Jewish disciples were relaxed in 
 order to conciliate Gentile converts. And a little reflection 
 will convince any one who considers the intimate union between 
 rite and creed, that this relaxation must have indicated a cor- 
 responding change in speculative views. It was indeed im- 
 possible but that such a change should occur. The doctrines 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 379 
 
 taught by tlie first missionaries acted powerfully upon the con- 
 verts ; but the views and feelings of these converts, in their 
 turn, necessarily reacted upon the doctrines.^ It is, therefore, 
 almost essential, in order to understand the circumstances that 
 led to the development of the dogma with regard to the nature 
 of Jesus, to inquire into the opinions prevalent outside of Judaea. 
 The writings that chiefly suggested the views that are now pre- 
 valent upon this subject — the later Epistles of Paid and the fourth 
 Gospel — were written probably at Rome and Ephesus, and bear 
 the impress of ideas foreign to Palestinian Judaism. Such an 
 enquiry will, besides, assist us to understand the circumstances 
 that facilitated the work of the early Christian preachers, and 
 aided the rapid progress of the Christian doctrine. 
 
 As has often been pointed out, there were three main circum- 
 stances that prepared the way for the difi'usion of Christianity, and 
 without which its success from the historical point of view would 
 liave been impossible. These were — the diffusion of the Greek 
 language, residting at first from the conquest of Alexander, and 
 afterwards from the relations between Greece and Rome, so 
 that it everywhere served for the vehicle of communication ; 
 the establishment of what we may almost term Jewish colonies 
 in every principal city of southern Europe, western Asia, and 
 northern Africa ; and the consolidation of the Roman Empire, 
 which embraced almost the whole civilized world, and provided 
 probably more effectually on the whole than had ever before 
 been done for the protection of life and the security of property. 
 The preachers of the good news found in every city an audience 
 willing to listen to doctrines, professedly based upon the Hebrew 
 prophecies ; they were able at once to preach these doctrines to 
 Gentile audiences if they failed to convince the Jews ; and they 
 were enabled peacefully and securely to journey from city to 
 
 1 The case of the late leader of the Taepings aflFords an instructive illustration of 
 the kind of action and reaction to which we refer. There appears sufficient reason 
 to believe that his original opinions were derived, in the first instance, fi-oni a Christian 
 source. In their contact with other ideas, they have been so far modified that few 
 could recognize any ti-aces of Christianity in his practice. 
 
380 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 city, and from country to country, so long as they were not 
 accused of any offence against Rome. It is true that the some- 
 what contemptuous toleration which the Romans accorded in 
 all matters not aifecting the security of their dominion, left 
 the Christian missionaries occasionally exposed to the violence 
 of mobs. And sometimes the local authorities might hold them 
 responsible for the tumults which their proceedings provoked, as 
 appears to have been the case with Paul and Silas at Philippi.^ 
 Allowing, however, for these exceptions, which appear to have 
 been, principally, if not altogether, associated with the preaching 
 of Paul, it appears clear that the Christian missionaries ever}^- 
 where found Jews who were ready in the first instance to listen 
 to their teaching ; that they experienced no difficulty in making 
 themselves understood among the Gentiles ; and that no oppo- 
 sition was ever ofiered to their journeying from one place to 
 another. 
 
 These external facilities were the indications of others more 
 important. They were associated with changes in the popular 
 worship, and still more in the popular sentiment with regard to 
 the objects of worship ; and with changes also in social relations 
 and political aims. The restricted and exclusive sympathy of 
 an. Athenian or a Theban, limited by the boundaries of the city 
 or the state, and intense in proportion to its narrowness, which 
 was the type of ancient patriotism, could no longer exist. It 
 had passed away with the autonomy of the republic. And even, 
 the old Greek contempt for anything that was not Hellenic, 
 though surviving in phrase, could scarcely survive in feeling 
 when barbarians were the masters of Greece, and the Greeks 
 were only one among a hundred subject peoples, owning a com- 
 mon lord and humbled by a common subjection. The equality 
 of all men before the emperor prepared the way for the recog- 
 nition of the doctrine of the equality of all men before God ; 
 and the peculiar privileges of Roman citizenship which might 
 
 1 Much as a London magistrate might now punish an open-air preacher, if he 
 gathered a mob that obstructed the highway, or led to a breach of the peace. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 381 
 
 belong to a native of any country, independently of nationality 
 or rank, offered an analogy that might render intelligible the 
 privileges offered to those who would become citizens of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 And the existence of the Roman Empire — the consolidation 
 of all power in one hand — gave the requisite leisure to attend to 
 the devices of a new faith. A few years earlier, men would 
 have been too busy with the separate politics of each State. 
 Wars and negotiations, the strife of parties, the aspirations, and 
 the dangers of autonomous action would have absorbed the at- 
 tention, and men would have put aside the inopportune an- 
 nouncement at least until some more convenient season. Com- 
 munities of disciples, who had fled in despair from the strife of 
 the world,^ might indeed have been formed, similar to those of 
 the Essenes on the shore of the Dead Sea, and of the Theraputaj 
 in Egypt ; but the world itself wouM have remained almost 
 uninfluenced. 
 
 There was yet another effect of the Roman successes that had 
 a more intimate relation to the progress of Christianity. By 
 destroying national independence they had weakened the feeling 
 of reverence to the national gods. It was impossible that they 
 could continue to be worshipped with the same fervour of de- 
 votion after their impotence to protect their worshippers had 
 been so signally demonstrated. It was not that victory had for 
 a moment deserted their cause. Such an incident had been of 
 common occurrence ; and ancient superstition had no greater 
 difficulty than modern in reconciling these reverses with a 
 continued faith in the power and beneficence of the gods whom 
 it worshipped. It was that every vestige of national indepen- 
 dence had been obliterated — that the very hope of freedom had 
 perished — and that a power as irresistible and merciless as that 
 of fate weighed on the world, in face of which hope was 
 paralyzed and effort was vain. The temples that had been 
 destroyed were rebuilt ; the violated shrines were redecorated ; 
 1 As they did from the disruption of society some two centuries later. 
 
382 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 sacrifices were still offered ; the splendour of tlie ritual and 
 the number of worshippers were apparently undiminished ; 
 but the old profound unquestioning belief had received a 
 shock from which it was impossible that it should recover. 
 Henceforth the gods might be implored for individual bless- 
 ings ; they might be regarded as the dispensers of the gifts of 
 pleasure or fortune ; but they were irrevocably dissevered from 
 the purer aspirations and higher life of their votaries. 
 
 The conquests of Rome were only the last of a long series 
 that had swept in successive waves over the whole known 
 world, from the Indus to the Atlantic. There was scarcely a 
 city that had not been pillaged, most of them repeatedly, and 
 not a country that had not been overrun. The original states, 
 established upon community of race and worship, had either 
 been broken up or absorbed in some larger organization. The 
 influence of the past was then everywhere weakened, and an 
 opening afforded for the introduction of new ideas. And the 
 operations of war and especially the carrying away the con- 
 quered people as slaves, which was one of its uniform incidents, 
 made men widely acquainted with the philosophy and religion 
 of other lands. The slave might be a man of rare abilities and 
 of high position : a philosopher, if of Grecian extraction ; a 
 priest, or at least learned in the religious lore of his race, if a 
 barbarian. And none of these would forget their old opinions 
 in the land to which they were transported. In Home, for 
 instance, the Egyptian slave carried with him a reminiscence of 
 the worship of Serapis, or of the deeper mysteries connected 
 with the service of the older gods ; the Persian still offered 
 adoration to Mithras, and looked with undisguised contempt 
 upon "the gods made with hands" worshipped by his con- 
 querers ; the Gaul and the Briton would continue to practice 
 the devotions they had learned in their native forests ; and the 
 Jew there, as everywhere, established his synagogue, and sab- 
 bath after sabbath, as he read the prophecies, feasted his fancy 
 with anticipation of the speedy downfall of the power of his 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 383 
 
 oppressors and of the establishment of the Kingdom of Jehovah. 
 And all these were willing to make proseh^tes of as many as 
 would listen to them. While by their side the Greek would 
 insinuate his scepticism with regard to every form of worship, 
 and would teach, according to the school of which he might 
 happen to be a disciple, either the indiflPerence of all actions 
 excej^ting in so far as they promoted or interrupted the happi- 
 ness of the agent, or the duty of practising virtue for its own 
 sake, irrespective of consequences, and of regarding with com- 
 posure and accepting with equanimity all the incidents of 
 fortune whether pleasurable or painful. 
 
 The picture thus drawn with regard to Rome would be re- 
 peated uj)on a smaller scale in almost every great city through- 
 out the empire. And the emporia of the east, Alexandria, 
 E]3hesus, Antioch, had other elements mingled with these, con- 
 sequent upon their greater proximity to India. If we may 
 trust the story told by Epiphanius, a merchant who had been 
 taught in the schools of India, and who late in life had elabo- 
 rated a system of religious philosophj^ visited even Jerusalem 
 for the purpose either of enlarging or imparting his views, a 
 few years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and met his death there. 
 And we may be sure there must have been many avenues by 
 which the religion and philosophy of India would penetrate to 
 western Asia, at least after Alexander's expedition to the Indus. 
 It is, in truth, difficult not to suspect a much earlier intercourse. 
 The many-breasted Artemis of Ephesus could scarcely be de- 
 rived from any other quarter ; for this mode of representing a 
 goddess was opposed to Grecian taste, and at variance with 
 Grecian symbolism. And it was equally difierent from the 
 Egyptian mode of representing Isis, with whom the Ephesian 
 goddess was sometimes identified.^ In India, however, this was 
 an ordinary method of symbolizing the fertility of nature, or 
 the many-sided attributes of divinity. And as no one, pro- 
 
 ' The Isis of the Serapeon was similarly formed ; but this was an innovation sub- 
 sequent to the introduction of the worship of Serapis by the Ptolemies. 
 
384 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 bably, would now believe that tbe image in fact fell down from 
 Jupiter, the legend that it did so may be taken to have origi- 
 nated in the circumstance that it was obtained from some foreign 
 and unknown source, presumably India. And this intercourse 
 would account for the wide diffusion of ideas originally derived 
 from India that we find in the history of the heresies of the 
 first three centuries. 
 
 In fact, throughout the entire Roman Empire the ground had 
 been broken up for the reception of new ideas. Everywhere 
 the old faith had been shaken — the old habits interrupted — the 
 old organizations destroyed. There was no longer anything 
 in political life to absorb the intellect or to occupy energy. 
 Power was the reward not of the attributes of the freeman, but 
 of the qualities of the slave ; its tenure was as precarious as 
 its price was degrading. And when the Empire failed any 
 longer to secure internal peace, when even that compensation 
 for the loss of freedom and independence ceased to be paid, and 
 every district in its turn was exposed to the ravages and wasted 
 by the exactions of rival candidates for the throne, men in their 
 despair of safety or repose in the present were driven to turn 
 their thoughts to the unseen future. The ties of country had been 
 already loosened ; patriotism had perished for want of an object 
 to which to attach itself ; and now the blight of insecurity had 
 settled upon everything ; no man could rely upon being able to 
 reap the crop which he had sown, or to eat the fruit which he 
 had garnered. The riches of the wealthy only made them the 
 more conspicuous objects for plunder, and the obscurity of the 
 poor too often afibrded no protection. There was consequently 
 a predisposition to listen to a doctrine that promised a new era 
 of peace and safety, founded upon the ruins of the existing 
 kingdom of violence and terror. The slave torn from his home 
 and family — the patriot who had no longer a country — the 
 peasant whose crops had been destroyed — the merchant whose 
 stores had been pillaged — the philosopher whose dreams of the 
 dominion of virtue were rudely dispelled by the triumph of 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 385 
 
 the baser forms of vice, — found each something appropriate in 
 the offer of a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, 
 of a better country, even a heavenly, — of a Kingdom into which 
 nothing that is defiled should enter, of treasures that were 
 secure against violence and decay, of a rest that no toil disturbs, 
 of a joy that no sorrow should trouble. The absorbing en- 
 thusiasm once excited by the stormy strife of parties, the vivid 
 patriotism that had animated the citizen of a free state, filling 
 the whole life, prompting to deeds of daring and endurance, 
 and forming their sufficient motive and reward, had gone never 
 in that stage of society to return. The pursuit of philosophy 
 even had lost much of its charm : it bore no longer the same 
 relation to actual life, but was mainly occupied with remote and 
 transcendental speculations, in which the body and its physical 
 and political associations were regarded as clogs and incum- 
 brances. Everywhere men were being led to detach themselves 
 from the world, for everywhere the old bulwarks were crumbling 
 around them. 
 
 It has sometimes been a reproach to Christianity that it made 
 no provision for patriotism ; but this is partly founded upon 
 a misconception. In Judaea the doctrine of the approaching 
 establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven stimulated the patriot- 
 ism of the nation, and animated the people to rise against the 
 power of Rome.^ Of the conduct of the Christians during the 
 Jewish war, and at the siege of Jerusalem, we know absolutely 
 nothing, for the tradition of their flight to Pella preserved by 
 Epiphanius is unreliable, if only for the supernatural revelation 
 that is assigned as the cause of the flight. It is by no means 
 impossible, it is in fact probable, that the majority of those 
 brethren who are described as having been, only five or six 
 years before, " zealots for the law," were among the most reso- 
 lute defenders of the city. Such conduct on their part, would, 
 
 1 The original doctrine of Jesus was peaceful, for it limited the action of the 
 helievers to moral preparation. But it was also patriotic, for it intensified the 
 national hope, and made every disciple impatient for its fulfilment. 
 
 25 
 
386 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 no doubt, have been inconsistent witb tbe lessons of Jesus as 
 preserved to us in the Gospels, but we cannot be certain that 
 these lessons existed in the same form previous to the siege. 
 And even if they had there would have been no greater diffi- 
 culty in explaining them away than there has been since in the 
 case of the precepts that inculcate love of enemies and submis- 
 sion to injuries. It is not easy to believe that men who expected 
 the almost immediate return of Jesus, to restore the Kingdom 
 to Israel, should have fled from the very place in which he was 
 to manifest himself on the eve of his appearance. Some might 
 have done so, repelled by the temper in which the defence was 
 carried on, or feeling that it was their part to wait for the 
 promised manifestation ; but the greater number would remain, 
 and only when the Romans were finally successful, and city 
 and temple were involved in one common ruin, would they be 
 convinced that their belief had been mistaken. 
 
 When, however, Christianity spread beyond the limits of 
 Palestine, it penetrated into lands where all feelings of nation- 
 ality had been crushed out, or where their display was im- 
 practicable. What had patriotism to do in a State in which 
 everything depended upon the will of an irresponsible function- 
 ary, whose power was absolute or only limited by an appeal to 
 Rome ? Submission was the only wisdom ; and obscurity the surest 
 safeguard. Experience would soon teach the lesson that even 
 a successful appeal to the Emperor directed a dangerous atten- 
 tion to the men who had been prominent on the occasion, and 
 too often marked them out for proscription or for exile. To 
 gain any boon by public efibrts — to organize any measures for 
 accomplishing a common purpose — to denounce acts of injustice, 
 or even to be prominent in relieving distress — was to become an 
 object of jealousy to the Government. For Christianity to have 
 inculcated patriotism would, consequently, have been idle, if even 
 it had not been opposed to its fundamental principle. What it 
 had to do among the Gentiles was to invite men to become 
 citizens of a new kingdom about to be established, and for this 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 387 
 
 purpose to detacli all tlie links that united them to existing- 
 institutions and communities. And its reception was facilitated 
 by the circumstance that those links were already loosened. 
 It established a communion independent of race or country, 
 founded upon common beliefs and hopes, and it transferred to 
 this the sentiments of devotion that its members had formerly 
 felt for the land of their birth. It substituted love to the 
 brethren for love of country, and the prosperity and spread of 
 the Church for the safety or aggrandizement of the State. 
 
 These considerations may help us to understand something of 
 the character of the field in which the seed of the kingdom was 
 to be sown. It will be seen that it was truly in the fulness 
 of time, when the world was prepared for the reception of 
 such a doctrine, that it was first preached. We may even 
 doubt whether there has been any other period in the world's 
 history when the establishment of Christianity would have been 
 possible. There have, it is true, been many subsequent ages in 
 which the sufferings of mankind have led them to turn with 
 renewed interest to the picture of Christ the Redeemer and 
 Consoler: and perhaps these ages would have allowed of the 
 difiiision of the Christian faith if then preached for the first 
 time. But it was needful for the foundation of Christianity 
 that the Jewish religion and nationality should still subsist at 
 Jerusalem, and even that they should continue to exist for a 
 suflacient time to allow the new faith to assume shape and con- 
 sistency under their shelter, and to permit the definite organi- 
 zation of the Church. If Jesus had appeared at any other time 
 — even so few years earlier as during the time of the Great 
 Herod, or so few j^ears later as during the siege of Jerusalem, 
 the establishment of Christianity would have been impossible.^ 
 
 At the time of Paul's preaching, and during the two years 
 of his imprisonment, the world was at peace. We see from 
 
 1 This may be urged as a proof of the supernatural origin of Christianity. But 
 all the circumstances upon which its success depended, resulted from causes that lie 
 
388 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 his letters, and we know from other sources, that Christianity 
 was not the only new doctrine claiming acceptance. And we 
 also see indications of a tendency in the disciples whom he 
 addresses to mingle with his doctrines practices derived from 
 the old worship, and speculations derived from contemporary 
 teaching. The former tendency has no relation to our present 
 subject ; it forms, however, an interesting chapter in any history 
 of the origin of Christianity ; and, if followed out, it might lead 
 to some unexpected results. The question of the lawfulness of 
 partaking of things offered to idols was settled finally in favour 
 of abstinence. But while thus teaching that meats and drinks 
 were not matters of indifference, and that what goes into 
 the mouth may defile a man, the Church was ultimately com- 
 pelled to adopt many practices from heathenism, either in despair 
 of inducing its converts to abandon them, or in order to remove 
 an obstacle to conversion. These had no perceptible influence 
 upon the dogma, so far as related to the person of Jesus, and 
 may be passed over. 
 
 The form of " strange doctrine " that came at first most 
 closely into contact with Christianity appears to have been 
 Gnosticism. Its characteristic feature was the sinfulness of 
 matter, and one of its chief objects, as a system of philosophy, 
 was to reconcile the existence of this evil with the perfections 
 of God. The method commonly adopted among the Gnostics 
 for this purpose was to attribute the formation of matter to some 
 inferior principle, proceeding from one of the emanations of the 
 
 outside the miraculous interventions recorded in the Canonical Scriptiires. The 
 continued existence of the Jewish people was due to the Asmonicans ; the diffusion 
 of the Greek language chiefly to the conquests of Alexander ; and the establishment 
 of the Roman Empire, not so much to individual genius'as to national character and 
 policy working through centuries. If all of these are attributed to supernatural 
 causes, the sphere of the supernatural must be enlarged to embrace all human action, 
 and there is no test by which to distinguish it from the natural. And if not, was it 
 chance or fate to which the concurrence of these necessary conditions was due ? and 
 was it skill in the use of means that enabled the Deity to select the appropriate 
 period for his interference ? Such questions sound irreverent, but they are neces- 
 sarily suggested by the orthodox view which confines God within the limits of 
 the events recorded in the Canon. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 389 
 
 Supreme Being. They filled the interval between the highest 
 heaven, the seat of Deity, and earth, the seat of matter, with 
 principalities, powers, mights, dominions, and names. These, 
 though originally derived from God, who was the ultimate source 
 of all existence, became imperfect and evil in proportion to their 
 distance from him. And it was by one of the lower of these 
 that the earth was created. Man was regarded as a being of 
 a mixed nature, having affinities to evil by reason of his body, 
 and to good by reason of his spirit.^ The lower powers who 
 ruled in the spheres nearest to earth resisted the elevation of 
 man to the higher heavens. And the Gnostic initiations were, 
 among other things, intended to instruct the neophyte in the 
 means by which after death he might pass through their do- 
 minions and reach the abode of the pure spirits that were nearest 
 to the throne of God. 
 
 The influence of these ideas upon the views that Paul enter- 
 tained of the nature of Jesus is clearly traceable in his later 
 Epistles. Just as in the earlier he is occupied in setting forth 
 Jesus as the Christ, and in claiming for the brethren in his 
 name freedom from the yoke of the law, so in the latter his 
 object appears to be to represent Jesus Christ as the highest 
 emanation, or rather, perhaps, as the highest created power, — 
 above all other powers or emanations, either by virtue of his 
 original nature, or of the gift of God consequent upon his 
 voluntary humiliation. The Gnostic ^ons and Archons are 
 recognized, but they are either subordinate to Christ or are ini- 
 potently hostile to the Church which he has founded. Thus 
 when God raised Christ from the dead he set him at his own right 
 hand in the heavens, far above all principality and power and 
 might and dominion, and everj^ name that is named not only 
 in this age but in that which is to come (Eph. i., 20, et seq.). 
 It is the medium of approach to the otherwise inaccessible God 
 (ii., 18). The Church is to shew the manifold wisdom of God 
 
 1 Paul obviously shares this sentiment. " In my flesh dwelleth no good ;■" " with 
 the mind I serve the law of God, with the flesh the law of sin " (Rom. vii., 18, 25). 
 
390 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 to principalities and powers in the heavens (iii., 10). The saints 
 are to understand the length and depth and breadth and height 
 (iii., 19).^ They formerly walked according to the ^on of the 
 world — the Archon of the power of the air (ii., 1, 2). And 
 even now they wrestle, not against flesh and blood, but against 
 principalities and powers — the " Cosmocrators " of this dark 
 age, against evil spirits in the heavens (v., 12). 
 
 It is not necessary to multiply quotations.^ Those which we 
 have cited are enough to shew the influence that Gnostic specu- 
 lations had upon the language in which Paul sets forth his 
 views as to the nature and dignity of Jesus, if not upon the 
 views themselves. He does not deny the existence of an ^on of 
 this world or of the Archons, Cosmocrators, — powers or names 
 to which the Gnostics attributed so much. He recognizes 
 their being and their power ; they are the opponents of Christ 
 and of his Kingdom — the assailants of the Churchy — the 
 enemies of the saints. But Christ has been elevated above 
 them in power and dignity, and is therefore able to support 
 those who believe in him against their assaults. The saint 
 has to wrestle with these foes whose service he has renounced ; 
 but aided by Christ his final triumph is certain. They may 
 trouble his earthly pilgrimage, but they cannot bar his entrance 
 into the presence of God, whither Christ has preceded him. To 
 Christ himself they are subordinate in rank and in authority. 
 Every development of the Gnosis, therefore, that tends to their 
 elevation only aggrandizes the Christian conception of the Lord ; 
 for he is their superior and ruler. They formed, as it were, a 
 scale by which the mind might rise to a contemplation of the 
 superior dignity of Christ, a standard by which the loftiness of 
 his nature might be measured. 
 
 The process in Paul's mind we may conjecture to have been 
 this. As Jesus by his resurrection and ascension was proved 
 
 * All these are terms employed by the Gnostics, and as having each a definite meaning. 
 
 2 We may refer to Phil, ii., 5, et seq. ; Col. i., 15-18, 19, 20 ; ii., 3-8, 9, 10, 15, 
 18-20. And there are many other traces of the same ideas to be found in these three 
 Epistles. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 391 
 
 to be tte destined founder of the Kingdom of Heaven — the ap- 
 pointed judge of all men — God's vicegerent and representative 
 — he must necessarily be superior to every other derived ex- 
 istence. If, therefore, the men of knowledge vs^ere right in 
 supposing that the present world was ruled by spiritual in- 
 fluences, and that other higher but hostile powers filled the 
 lower celestial sj)heres, these were either originally inferior to 
 Jesus or he had been elevated above them, when Grod raised 
 him to his own right hand in heaven. If by Jesus God was to 
 judge the world, he must be superior to the Prince of the world. 
 If he was to gather from the nations a separated people and 
 to bring them to himself, he must be able to defend them from 
 all the various foes by whom they might be assailed or ob- 
 structed. If he was to found a heavenly kingdom he must be 
 able to subdue all hostile forces, and either reduce them to sub- 
 jection or drive them beyond the limits of his dominion. 
 
 The influence of Gnosticism upon Paul's idea of Jesus, 
 as gathered from his writings, appears to have been confined 
 within these limits. It was indirect, and probably afiected 
 not so much the character of the conception as the language 
 in which it was described. There was nothing in any of 
 the passages to which we have referred that necessarily con- 
 tradicted the Gnosis.^ Many of the leading Gnostics of the 
 following century appear in fact to have identified Jesus with 
 the highest power or first emanation from the Supreme Being — 
 the " Sophia " or wisdom of God. By this means they were 
 brought into such relations to the Church as led to their being 
 regarded as heretics. These speculations were known inde- 
 pendently of and even antecedently to Christianity. It is, in 
 fact, evident from these Epistles, that the first generation of con- 
 verts was familiar with doctrines similar to those subsequently 
 developed and systematized by Basilides and Valentinus, and 
 that they needed to be cautioned against some of their con- 
 
 1 There was contradiction in the attributions of the creation of the world to 
 Jesus ; but this did not prevent Paul from regarding matter as essentially ei,il. 
 
392 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 sequences. And as these doctrines had no root in the life and 
 teaching of Jesus, and could not have been thence derived, they 
 must have had an independent origin. The mature form in 
 which they are presented implies a lengthened previous develop- 
 ment. The language of Paul shews that there was an aspect 
 imder which they might be regarded that was not inconsistent 
 with Christian doctrine ; and there can be no doubt that 
 they facilitated the spread of the Gospel, but not without 
 greatly modifying its nature. The progress of opinion 
 has eliminated nearly the whole of the Gnostic machinery 
 from the faith of Christendom, though some of their funda- 
 mental conceptions still remain, and may be traced in much of 
 the popular theology of the day. 
 
 The later developments of Judaism outside of Palestine 
 afforded another class of ideas that tended to aggrandize the 
 conception which Paul formed of Jesus. In the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures are many representations of the actions, many descriptions 
 of the manifestations of Jehovah, tinged with the anthropo- 
 morphism of the age. These, even among the Palestinian Jews, 
 had become repugnant to their more elevated views of the God- 
 head. And as regards those who dwelt in the seats of Eastern 
 commerce, especially in Alexandria, and who were thus brought 
 into contact with Greek philosophy, this repugnancy became 
 deeper in proportion to the enlarged circle of ideas with which 
 they were familiar. It had consequently become the practice to 
 refer these acts and manifestations not to Jehovah himself but 
 to some angel or messenger, or to his word, or wisdom, or 
 spirit. In the latter case the idea appears to have been in- 
 determinate, and to have hovered between that of a distinct 
 personality and that of an attribute merely, gradually in- 
 clining to the former. The one God of Judaism was thus 
 removed from direct contact with human affairs. Himself in- 
 visible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible, pure, spiritual, 
 changeless, He was on that account incapable of operating upon 
 matter or directing the shifting destinies of men or nations. It 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 393 
 
 was needful, therefore, that some intermediate agency should be 
 devised by means of which his control of the world might be 
 vindicated and his essential characteristics preserved. 
 
 No one at that time had raised himself to the conception of 
 law at once universal and unchanging. The nearest approach 
 to such an idea was that of fate, blind and inexorable. And 
 this, though above everything and ultimately controlling every- 
 thing, left room for the volitions of innumerable inferior agencies, 
 malignant or propitious. It would not have been possible for any 
 one at that time to have realized the idea that the tempest that 
 sunk a fleet, or the earthquake that overwhelmed a city, or the 
 pestilence that wasted a people, or the comet that brought wars 
 and famines in its train, was only a result of the same forces 
 acting in obedience to the same laws that provided for the 
 beauty and fertility of the earth — that gave " rain from heaven 
 and fruitful seasons," and that regulated the stars in their 
 courses. And if anyone, in a moment of inspiration, had 
 raised himself to the height of such an idea, he could not have 
 justified it to himself or to others. All these " fateful in- 
 fluences " were accordingly referred to the agency of some 
 superior being. 
 
 Nor was it possible for these thinkers to refer such visitations 
 to the direct personal intervention of the one supreme God. 
 Even the creation of the visible world, and of the human race 
 with its material form and fleshly appetites, was regarded as 
 inconsistent with his perfections. To have attributed this to 
 him would have been to make him the immediate cause of that 
 which was the source of all imperfection and sin. The origi- 
 nation of matter, and the regulation of material phenomena, 
 were consequently attributed to inferior personalities — deriving 
 their existence from God, and the higher, at least, in a measure 
 partaking of his nature — the " Logos " or " Sophia ;" — the word 
 or wisdom of God, or powers or angels. To the former was 
 ascribed the creation of the world. And just in the same 
 manner that Paul availed himself of the Gnostic ideas familiar 
 
394 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 to the disciples whom he addressed, to aggrandize the character 
 of Jesus as the Christ, by raising him above all the beings whom 
 they recognized; so he avails himself of these Judeo- Alexandrine 
 ideas for the same purpose. Jesus is the wisdom of God and 
 the power of God ; by him God made the world ; he is the 
 first born of every creature, the type of the spiritual man, the 
 medium by whom is introduced the new heavenly dispensation. 
 In these various expressions Paul uses language which, as we 
 see from Philo, was employed by thinkers of another school, 
 for the purpose of expressing their solution of the problem 
 with which they were occupied. And there can be no doubt 
 that not only the language but the ideas had been originally 
 derived by Paul from this school, either through the teaching 
 of Gamaliel, or, as may be even suggested, from Philo himself; 
 though their spheres in life were too widely apart to render 
 this latter suggestion probable. 
 
 The pecuKarity of Paul in this respect is not that he recog- 
 nizes the existence of this intermediate principle, but that he 
 identifies it with Jesus. And it may be doubted whether he 
 has any independent belief upon the subject. It is possible 
 that, apart from his faith in Jesus, he would have attached no 
 importance to it. Such ideas to him would be mere matters of 
 speculation, of which he had heard, but which had no hold 
 upon faith or practice. "When, however, by the vision or re- 
 velation that convinced him of the resurrection of Jesus, he 
 was led to recognize him as the Messiah, — the founder of the 
 Kingdom of God, — all these ideas acquired significance and 
 vitality. They were no longer idle speculations fitted to occupy 
 the leisure of some dreaming recluse. They became actual 
 realities, embodied in the person and ofiice of the Lord. His 
 resurrection from the dead proved him to be the Son of God 
 in an emphatic and exceptional sense. He was thus the in- 
 strument of reconciliation between God and the world — the 
 medium through which God displayed his mercy and power 
 in bringing the world back to himself. And this could be no 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 395 
 
 new relation. He was the first born of the dead, and in this 
 sense, at least, the first born of every creature. It was but a 
 step from this to regard him as the beginning of the creation 
 of God. Nay, his birth must even have preceded the creation 
 of the world ; — and in that case he must be that being, whether 
 son, or word, or power, or wisdom, by whom God made the 
 worlds ; and this involved yet further consequences. As in 
 his first aspect Jesus was the framer of whatever existed, so in 
 his last manifestation he was to destroy the works of the 
 Devil, and restore all things ; triumphing not only over Satan, 
 but over sin ; and bringing the whole redeemed universe into 
 willing subjection to God, to whom on the completion of his 
 work he yielded back the authority which he had received.^ 
 Thenceforth God was to reign alone over a holy, spiritual, 
 harmonious world, in which nothing that was alien to his 
 nature or rebellious to his authority would exist. 
 
 It is true that Paul was not always able to maintain his 
 spirit at such an elevation. The obvious frailties and imperfec- 
 tions of the Saints— the hostility of the Jews — false doctrines 
 among the brethren — idolatry and wickedness among the 
 heathen — the falling away of friends — weakness in his own 
 flesh — all these clogged his mental flight and dimmed his 
 spiritual vision. They brought too vividly before him the 
 actual condition of the world and of the Church. They were 
 impediments in the way of the truth — obstacles to the progress 
 of the Gospel— hindrances that even delayed the manifestation 
 of Jesus to establish his kingdom. And it is no matter of sur- 
 prise that in face of these realities his faith in the ultimate 
 universal triumph of good should sometimes fail, that he should 
 be occasionally unable to rise above the dark clouds that bounded 
 his horizon to the pure and serene sky beyond. In spite of all, 
 the essential feature of his views with regard to Jesus was 
 this,— that as he was the first manifestation of God, and his 
 
 1 1 Cor, XV., 24, et seq. It is true that Paul uses the word death to describe the 
 last enemy, but in his idea sin and death mutually imply and include each other. 
 
396 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 agent in creating the world, so he was the destined agent to 
 create it anew spiritually, and thus to bring it back to God. 
 And this view would have lost all its value to him, if, after all, 
 Satan was still to be not only rebellious but the ruler of a 
 world in which evil was to subsist and be propagated for ever, 
 and which included the great majority of the human race. 
 There would, indeed, be no meaning or value in a triumph that 
 left the adversary in possession of nearly all the object con- 
 tended for, — in an infinite sacrifice that rescued only a fraction 
 of those for whose redemption it was made.^ And Paul cer- 
 tainly, whatever deductions may have been made from isolated 
 expressions, never supposed that Jesus intended to limit the 
 saving virtue of his death to those who might hear of his 
 name before the moment of his hourly expected reappearance. 
 
 From this it will appear that there were two classes of ideas 
 outside of the original picture of Jesus, that helped to form the 
 conception of Christ that Paul presents to the disciples in his 
 Epistles. Of these one operated chiefly by way of contrast and 
 the other by assimilation. To the followers of the Gnosis, 
 Paul set forth Jesus as raised above the powers whom they 
 acknowledged to be the rulers of the world and of the lower 
 Heavens; as entitled to their worship and able to vanquish 
 their hostility. To the Jews and to those who believed with 
 them, and who had learned in the Schools of Philosophy to 
 remove Jehovah from all contact with the world, he preached 
 Jesus as that manifestation of God to which they attributed the 
 original creation of matter and all the intra-mundane appear- 
 ances which their Scriptures had assigned to Jehovah himself. 
 And as there were many points in common between the Gnosis 
 
 1 It has always been the belief of the great thinkers of the Church that the num- 
 ber of the lost very far exceeds that of the saved. At present, in Protestant countries, 
 there is rather a reaction against this doctrine, even among the most rigidly orthodox ; 
 and the ranks of the redeemed are swelled by those of the heathen who have never 
 heard of the name of Jesus, and of infants who have not committed actual sin. 
 And yet these same persons, with amiable inconsistency, organize missions to the 
 heathen, and seek to diminish the destruction of infant life. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 397 
 
 and the Judaeo- Alexandrine Philosopliy, there was nothing in 
 either of these aspects of the character of Jesus that would not 
 be intelligible to the followers of both systems. It is obvious 
 that this gave a standpoint to the teaching of Paul and facili- 
 tated its reception ; it was new, not absolutely but relatively. 
 Its novelty consisted in the circumstance that these ideas were 
 brought down from the region of speculation and clothed in the 
 human form of the crucified Jesus. But this, to the Gentiles 
 at least, was an attraction, for it furnished an analogy to one 
 of their most familiar conceptions — that of a divine being mani- 
 festing himself in the likeness of man. And even to the Jews 
 it offered a means of reconciling a belief in the superhuman 
 attributes and origin of Jesus with their worship of Jehovah as 
 the one true God. In this way it enabled them to embrace the 
 new faith without abandoning the old ; and when this was no 
 longer practicable they fell off. The number of those among 
 the Jews who have recognized Jesus as Jehovah has always been 
 infinitesimally small. 
 
 These remarks have proceeded throughout upon the assump- 
 tion that Paul was the author of all the Epistles popularly attri- 
 buted to him, except that to the Hebrews. And on the whole 
 that is perhaps the most probable conclusion.^ It is not, 
 however, free from difiiculty. Apart from questions of style, 
 upon which in this case little or no reliance can be placed, 
 for the alleged differences are not greater than most men 
 might find in different letters of their own, there are serious 
 differences in the modes of presenting the truths taught, if not 
 in the truths themselves, scarcely to be looked for in letters 
 written within so short a time and to the same class of persons. 
 And upon the ordinary view that the Gnostic writers, accounts 
 of whose systems we have from the Fathers, such as Basilides 
 and Yalentinus, were the authors of the ideas that lay at the 
 base of their systems, it would be difficult not to conclude 
 
 1 Excepting the Pastoral Epistles, but they have no bearing upon the question we 
 have discussed. 
 
398 THE JESUS or history. 
 
 that tlie three Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and 
 Colossians, were composed after their time, or at any rate after 
 the publication of their treatises. If, indeed, it is understood 
 that during the life of Paul, and probably long before, these 
 ideas were widely diffused through the regions which he visited, 
 and were thus familiar to his converts, this ground of objec- 
 tion to their authenticity is removed. Other objections re- 
 main, and the question cannot be considered as decided, since, 
 hitherto, no adequate reasons have been assigned for the change 
 in the manner in which Paul conceives and exhibits the 
 character of Jesus in two Epistles so near in point of date as 
 those to the Romans and to the Ephesians.^ The question 
 though interesting, like many others that we have encountered, 
 lies outside the subject of the present investigation. . For these 
 later Epistles, whether written by Paul or not, equally exhibit 
 the process by which the conception of Jesus as the Christ was 
 elevated and transformed. 
 
 The fourth Grospel indicates a further stage in the progress 
 of Christian thought. It has freed itself from the disturbing 
 elements with which it was at first associated, and has succeeded 
 in realizing an idea of Jesus at once homogeneous and inde- 
 pendent. The influence of both Alexandrian and Gnostic views 
 may be distinctly traced, but they do not even form the ground- 
 work of the picture. Jesus is no longer the word or power of 
 God, he is the Logos, the word, simply. No longer an emana- 
 tion or an attribute, he is a divine person. He is not the first- 
 born of the creation of God, he is with God in the beginning. 
 God does not make the worlds by him, but it is by himself that 
 they and all things are made. He becomes incarnate, but the 
 veil of flesh does not conceal his glory from those who are spirit- 
 
 1 It is only in these later Epistles (and in the pastoral) that he refers to the 
 ascension of Jesus, and many of the views set forth in the earlier Epistles are 
 greatly modified. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 399 
 
 ually enlightened. It is not the being raised from the dead 
 that demonstrates his essential nature ; this is exhibited by his 
 works and by his words. He does not wear the form of a slave, 
 and make himself of no reputation ; on the contrary, the works 
 that he does bear witness to all men that he is one with the 
 Father. God does not raise him from the dead ; the taking up 
 again of his life is the result of his own power. It is not his 
 lowly position that provokes distrust ; it is the inherent antagon- 
 ism between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, life and 
 death. Such contrasts might be indefinitely multiplied. These 
 that we have instanced, however, are sufficient to shew how, 
 under the influence of a mode of thought opposed to Judaism, 
 many of the accessories to the loftier views that Paul first pro- 
 mulgated have been eliminated. 
 
 In all this we see the influence of Gentile ideas ; and it 
 is not merely impossible that such a work could have been 
 written at Jerusalem, or based upon the traditions of that place ; 
 it is equally impossible that it should have been written by a 
 Jew of Palestine, — unless, indeed, he had been separated from 
 his country at so early an age as to allow of his early precon- 
 ceptions being utterly obliterated by the influence of Gentile 
 ciilture. There is just so much recognition of Judaism as to 
 maintain its historical connection with Christianity. Less than 
 this could not be done by any Christian writer, at least not with- 
 out placing himself outside the circle of ecclesiastical tradition, 
 and thus ensuring the ultimate rejection of his work. But this 
 is all. The patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets, are made to 
 bear testimony to Jesus, and thus, by implication, they are de- 
 clared to have been inspired. But the Jewish people, among 
 whom Jesus lived, and before whom his miracles were performed, 
 are types of the world in its opposition to himself and his Church. 
 In this respect they take the place of the Gentiles and the 
 publicans of the earlier Gospels. And it is noticeable that there 
 is no mention in the fourth Gospel of either of these classes. 
 There is not even an allusion to the latter, and when the writer 
 
400 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 does refer to nations outside Judaea, he uses the word Greek,^ 
 not Gentile ; thus symbolizing the distinction between the Greek, 
 as the representative of civilized mankind, and the Jew ; instead 
 of that between the Jew as the heir of the covenant, and the 
 whole outside world. 
 
 The fourth Gospel may be regarded as the work that fixed 
 the position of Christianity between Gnosticism, on the one hand, 
 and Judaism, on the other. The tendency of the former was to 
 substitute an ideal for the historical Jesus, and to break abso- 
 lutely with Judaism in the past as well as in the present ; that 
 of the latter to keep Jesus strictly within the limits of humanity, 
 and to maintain the perpetual obligation of the law. The former 
 tendency is met by asserting the real existence of Jesus, by ex- 
 hibiting him as subject to the conditions of human life, circum- 
 scribed within the limits of time and place, and at the same 
 time making him the subject of Hebrew prophecy, and the 
 fulfilment of the purpose of God made known to Abraham and 
 Moses. Jesus is the Logos, but he is " made flesh ; " — thus 
 emphatically contradicting the Gnostic dogma of the essentially 
 evil nature of flesh in itself; — he becomes a real man, and as 
 such is crucified ; and it is of him that Moses and the prophets 
 did write. Beside this, there is a more profound though less 
 obvious contradiction. The Gnostics admitted, to a certain 
 extent, the Hebrew Scriptures, but they regarded Jehovah as 
 an inferior and even an evil power. He had made and he ruled 
 the world ; but by this he was shewn to be of a lower order of 
 existence, far below the pure and holy being to whom alone the 
 name of God was due. And their opposition to Judaism was 
 founded upon the view they thus took of its God. The Jews 
 were the children of the evil ruler of this world — his people 
 and subjects. The fourth Gospel, on the contrarj^, attributes 
 the formation of the world to Jesus as the Logos, in which 
 character he partook of the Divine nature. And though it 
 
 ' John vii., 35 ; translated Gentile in the Authorized Version. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 401 
 
 adopts the Gnostic view that the Jews are the children of the 
 prince of this world, yet that prince is not Jehovah but Satan ; 
 and they are proved to be his children because they refuse to 
 recognize Jesus as him of whom Jehovah had spoken through 
 the prophets, whose day Abraham had rejoiced to see, and of 
 whom Moses had written. The latter — the Jewish tendency — 
 is met by exhibiting Jesus as pre-existent and divine, and by 
 passing over the law as a thing worn out, and, therefore, not 
 even needing to be noticed. 
 
 The causes that led to the composition of the fourth Gospel 
 appear to be indicated by the nature of the work itself. To one 
 who had been able to realize such a conception of Jesus as it 
 embodies, the existing narratives must have appeared imperfect 
 and even derogatory. The Jesus in whom the Church believed, 
 who was preached to the Gentiles, whom the Jews as a people 
 had rejected, must have been something very different from the 
 Son of David and Saviour of Israel who was set forth in the 
 earlier Gospels. The time had, consequently, come when there 
 was room and need for a fresh delineation from the more ad- 
 vanced and altered point of view of the writer. His object was 
 not controversial but constructive ; he wished to lay the basis 
 for a loftier and, in his belief, a truer idea of the Saviour of the 
 world than that which prevailed. This does not, indeed, exclude 
 the influence of current modes of thought ; rather it implies 
 their effect ; and it was by contact with these, and by musings on 
 the character of Jesus in the relations that it bore to the specu- 
 lations of the schools, to the so-called knowledge of the Gnostics, 
 to the Jewish people, and to the Jewish Scriptures, that the con- 
 ception had been gradually elaborated. And it had points of 
 contact with all these, as appears from the circumstance that 
 7>hilosophers, Gnostics, and Jews had all claimed to be Christians, 
 and had depicted Jesus from their own point of view. 
 
 No one, therefore, who was familiar with the writings of Chris- 
 tian or self-styled Christian authors, or conversant with the 
 questions that were agitated in the Church, could altogether 
 
 26 
 
402 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 escape the influence of these various forms of thought. In any 
 attempt to portray Jesus, his nature, position, and doctrine 
 must be defined expressly or implicitly with reference to these 
 systems. It is not necessary to suppose that this was done 
 here with deliberate purpose ; it is more probable that the 
 process was half unconscious. The author, in his conversa- 
 tions with Christians of different shades of opinion, or in his 
 own solitary meditation, had been led to separate his ideal of 
 Jesus from one and another of the narrow or lowering con- 
 ceptions with which he had found it associated. And in every 
 such case it would be natural for him so to define his own view 
 as to indicate this separation. And when at length the image in 
 his own mind was complete, he emplo3'ed the vehicle of narrative 
 to impress that image upon the doctrine of the Church. He was 
 one of those who had not seen and yet had believed. But he 
 felt the necessity of clothing himself with the authority be- 
 longing to one who had seen, and he accordingly so writes as to 
 imply — though nowhere, in the original Gospel, to assert — that 
 the work has the sanction of the traditional head of Asiatic 
 Christianity — the last survivor of those who had been the chosen 
 companions of Jesus — the Apostle John. 
 
 We have already referred to the circumstance that when 
 Paul wrote the world was at peace. Even then an ex- 
 perienced eye might detect some signs of the coming crisis. 
 Matters were ripening for the revolt of the Jews. Their im- 
 patience of the yoke increased with every year's endurance, and 
 a sense of insecurity induced their rulers to employ sterner 
 measures of repression. And, in Rome itself, the excesses of 
 Nero were weakening the foundations of the throne, and sapping 
 the feelings of reverence with which the imperial house had 
 been regarded. Everywhere there was a vague sense of un- 
 easiness and alarm. Men knew not what they feared ; but not 
 the less did an undefined terror brood over them. It was not 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 403 
 
 the Christians only who felt that the time was short. All men 
 recognized the impossibility that the existing calm should long 
 endure, though they knew not from what quarter the tempest 
 was to burst, nor in what form it would come. The visions of 
 peace and happiness awakened in some sanguine souls by the 
 final establishment of Augustus as the one ruler of the world, 
 which found their happiest expression in the verse of Virgil, 
 had been dissipated by experience. The strife of parties was 
 quelled — the animosities of rival States had died out, or were 
 repressed — "kings stood still with awful eye" in presence of 
 the resistless power of the Emperor, and scarcely dared to un- 
 sheath the sword for any object. But the energies that had 
 once found a healthy vent in the free but tempestuous atmo- 
 sphere of contending States and parties, were not destroyed by 
 being deprived of their accustomed exercise. They con!;inued 
 to subsist, though the sphere and nature of their action was 
 changed ; they corrupted the organizations which they could no 
 longer animate. They constituted elements of disintegration and 
 disorder, producing dissatisfaction with the present, and a readi- 
 ness to welcome any proposal that held out a prospect of change. 
 Such a state of feeling is to be traced with more or less dis- 
 tinctness in the writings of Paul. These shew a tendency in 
 the disciples to free themselves from the restraints of society 
 and government ; a restlessness and impatience ; a disposition 
 to despise or to neglect the daily duties of their position, and to 
 regard their admission into the Church as freeing them from 
 all other obligations. No doubt something of this was due to the 
 nature of the faith which they had embraced. Its anticipations 
 and its requirements were alike unfavourable to the continued 
 performance of the old duties. But much of it was also due to 
 circumstances common to the whole of society, and to feelings 
 in which all ranks in some degree shared. Still Paul could 
 appeal to his converts on the ground of the security associated 
 with the administration of justice, the protection it afforded 
 to the peaceful, the punishment it inflicted upon evil doers ; 
 
404 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 and could on this account claim their obedience to the existing 
 authority. There was the excitement of anticipation — the hope 
 or the fear of a change ; but in the meantime men had peace 
 and safety in the discharge of their duty. 
 
 In the period, however, that elapsed between the Epistles of 
 Paul and the composition of the fourth Gospel, great changes 
 had occurred. The Roman Empire had been twice left as a 
 prize to be contended for by the sword. The power of the 
 Emperor might be as resistless as ever, but the old feelings of 
 reverence and security that had once been associated with his 
 office, no longer existed. He owed his position to the support 
 of the Legions, and his right was merely the right of the 
 strongest. It had no moral basis ; submission might be pru- 
 dent or necessary, but that was all. It was not dignified by 
 the associations connected with an hereditary title, such as had 
 in a measure begun to gather round the first imperial line, or 
 with one conferred by the free choice of the people. The ex- 
 istence of the civil power was a fact, to which every one was 
 compelled to accommodate himself, as to any other inevitable 
 incident, but it had no hold upon the popular sentiment, and 
 awakened no feelings of loyalty. 
 
 Coincident with this change in the position of the central 
 authority, with which the relations of the Church were chiefly 
 external, there had been an equal change in Judaism with which 
 Christianity was so intimately connected. The siege of Jeru- 
 salem, and its capture by Titus, had scarcely afiected the views 
 of the contemporary generation of believers. They were, in 
 fact, regarded as necessary scenes in the development of the 
 great drama. Whether or not their occurrence had been 
 shadowed forth by Jesus, it is certain that they were regarded 
 by those who witnessed them as signs that were to precede the 
 coming of the Son of Man in the clouds. There was nothing 
 necessarily inconsistent with the views of the early Christians 
 in the circumstance that the old dispensation should be abolished 
 before the new was inaugurated. And to the Jews themselves, 
 
THE JESUS or HISTORY. 405 
 
 their failure, and the capture and destruction of the holy city, 
 only proved that they had not selected the predicted time for their 
 attempt. Their faith in the prophecies, as interpreted by them- 
 selves, remained unshaken, and they were prepared as readily 
 to undertake the re-conquest of their country as they had been 
 before to undertake its defence. Nevertheless, that event was 
 a turning point in the relation of the two systems ; and from 
 this time they began practically to diverge. 
 
 We have no indication, indeed, of any complaint on the part 
 of the Jews that their Christian brethren had deserted them in 
 the time of their extremity. And though James, the brother 
 of Jesus, was put to death a short time before, it was by 
 Ananus, a Sadducee and supporter of the Roman authority, 
 and, probably, in dread of seditious movements connected with 
 the Messianic expectations of the people. This, indeed, is not 
 hinted at by Josephus, but his silence forms no argument to the 
 contrary, since no one from his writings would conjecture that 
 the Jews entertained any expectations of that nature.^ And 
 the execution, or murder, is represented as exciting a strong 
 feeling against the perpetrator. There is nothing, consequently, 
 to alter the impression we receive from the later chapters of the 
 Acts, that the brethren who believed in Jesus were a popular 
 sect — only distinguished from the rest of the Jews by the cir- 
 cumstance of their connecting their Messianic expectations with 
 his person. And we have no ground for supposing that any 
 direct change in the mutual feelings of Christians and Jews was 
 produced by the siege. 
 
 Practically that event altered the relative importance of 
 the parties in the Church, and gave a preponderance to the 
 Gentile element, that became more marked in proportion to 
 the wider diffusion of the new faith. The purely Jewish con- 
 ception of the Kingdom of Heaven was inevitably modified 
 
 1 The legend reported by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. B. II., c. 23) as to the 
 circumstances attending the death of James is inconsistent with the statement of 
 Josephus, who was a contemporary. It expresses the sentiments of a later age. 
 
406 THE JESUS or HISTORY. 
 
 when the Gospel was preached to converts who had been under 
 no previous obligation to obey the law. We see the first in- 
 timation of this in the writings of Paul ; but his point of 
 view was too comprehensive and liberal for the age. Those 
 to whom he wrote seem either to have abused his doctrine by 
 making it an excuse for license, or to have fallen back upon the 
 authority of the Church, represented at the time by the Apostles 
 and Elders at Jerusalem. The principles that he enunciated 
 bore, nevertheless, some fruit. It was impossible, in the face 
 of protests so energetic and uncompromising, to impose upon 
 the new converts the whole burthen of the law. Some might 
 submit to circumcision as a " counsel of perfection," harmless 
 under one aspect though essential under another ; but to the 
 majority the rite would be repulsive, and they would refuse 
 to join the community if this were the condition of entrance. 
 And it was imperative that the feelings of such men should be 
 respected, if the Gentiles were to be admitted as brethren. 
 
 The so-called Apostolical decree may be regarded as express- 
 ing the terms upon which the Gentiles were ultimately permitted 
 to enter the society. There may even have been a Council at 
 .Jerusalem at which such a concession was resolved upon ; though, 
 if so, it must have been of a much later date than that assigned 
 to it in the Acts, and certainly was not assented to by Paul.^ 
 It is more probable that it represents a practical concession, 
 tolerated, but not formally sanctioned by the Church at Jeru- 
 salem. Those who were " zealots of the law " in that city, 
 and who in Antioch prevented Peter from eating with so- 
 called brethren because they were not circumcised, would not, 
 we may be certain, have consented to such a decree. And it 
 is doubtful if the Apostles and Elders could have succeeded in 
 procuring its acceptance in face of their opposition. 
 
 ^ His argument to the Corinthians (1 Cor. viii., x., 19-23) is a direct proof of 
 this. The Epistle was written some years after the assumed date of the Council, 
 and both the doubt of the Corinthians whether it is lawful to eat things sacrificed to 
 idols, ancf the manner in which the question is treated by Paul, imply that there was 
 no recognized rule, still less a binding decree, upon the subject. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 407 
 
 When Jerusalem was captured, and the members of the 
 Church there were slain, captive, or dispersed, their successors, 
 whether at Pella or elsewhere, occupied a very different posi- 
 tion. Even if they re-established themselves in Jerusalem, 
 as was probably the case, the prestige of the city had departed, 
 and they were no longer presided over by any of the Apostles. 
 They were, consequently, unable to exercise any control over 
 the progress of the body. The various churches were left to 
 organize themselves, and to determine the conditions of ad- 
 mission and communion ; which were nol; apparently re- 
 laxed. Candidates were admitted by baptism, and the only 
 sacred rite appears to have been their partaking in common 
 of the Lord's Supper.^ The organization of the synagogue 
 had been introduced into the Church, with such modifications 
 as were demanded by its less exclusive attitude in relation to 
 the Gentiles. The only profession required previous to baptism 
 was faith in tbe Lord Jesus Christ,^ implying, apparently, a 
 belief in him as raised from the dead, and as the appointed 
 jixdge of the world and founder of the Kingdom of God. 
 Christians, however, were still in a modified sense a Jewish 
 sect. They were, indeed, free from the obligation of the law, 
 but they worshipped Jehovah — they accepted the Hebrew 
 Scriptures ^ as inspired — they believed in Jesus as the Messiah 
 of Hebrew prophecy — they looked for his return to reign in 
 Jerusalem as the King of the Jews, and they expected, as a 
 consequence of their admission into the Church, to share in the 
 
 1 1 Cor. xi., 17, 18, 20, where "coming together," and "coming together to eat 
 the Lord's Supper" appear to be convertible expressions. It was apparently- 
 accompanied by exhortation, and furnished an opportunity for a display of the 
 various spiritual gifts with which individual brethi-en were endowed, not always 
 orderly or decorous. 
 
 2 This appears from the Acts of the Apostles throughout. It is impossible to 
 suppose that the writer could without comment have represented Philip and Paul as 
 baptizing a convert upon this profession only, if the Church at the time of his 
 writing had required any other. In the case of the three thousand, this profession is 
 apparently implied, and in that of Cornelius the gift of tongues is represented as 
 dispensing mth the necessity of any profession whatever. 
 
 3 In the Septuagint version with the Apocrypha. 
 
408 THE JESUS -OF HISTORY. 
 
 glories of this Kingdom. He had broken down the barrier 
 that had formerly excluded the Gentile world from a partici- 
 pation in the hopes and privileges of the Jews. They were 
 now free to enter and share ; but the hopes and the privileges 
 were essentially Jewish.^ They were a spiritual Israel — the 
 true circumcision — grafted by baptism into the Hebrew stock — 
 the seed of Abraham after the spirit, and heirs by faith of the 
 promise made to him. These are a few of the expressions em- 
 ployed by early Christian writers to describe the position of the 
 brethren who were merely baptized in relation to the promises 
 of the Kingdom. And they shew how essentially Jewish the 
 idea of that Kingdom was, — since it was only by adoption into 
 the Jewish people that the Gentiles could hope to enter. 
 
 This was a condition that could not be permanent ; and the 
 relative importance of the two divisions of the Church, those 
 who had been baptized after circumcision, and those who had 
 never been circumcised, was gradually altered. The mere growth 
 of the community, recruited from all nations indiscriminately, 
 would slowly but certainly give the preponderance in numbers 
 to the latter. And it was almost inevitable that they should not 
 merely be more numerous, but that among them should exist a 
 larger share of energy and ability. The destruction of the 
 Church at Jerusalem allowed these tendencies to operate un- 
 checked. If we may trust Eusebius, there was not, after the 
 death of the Apostles, a single Jew among the bishops of the 
 churches outside Judaja. The leadership of the new faith 
 passed at once into the hands of the Gentiles. And they 
 necessarily viewed the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven under 
 another aspect ; they did not reject the Jewish Scriptures, but 
 they either allegorized them, or they passed over the exclu- 
 sively Jewish aspect given to it in the prophets. Practically, 
 these writings were so interpreted as to suit the alteration that 
 was being effected in the constitution of the Church itself. 
 This change is illustrated by the difference between the Reve- 
 1 This is especially shown in the writings of Justin. — Reuss, Hist, du Canon. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 409 
 
 lations and tlie third Gospel, and also tlie Acts of the Apostles. 
 The former of these was almost certainly composed after the 
 death of Nero, and before the accession of Vespasian ; the 
 two latter probably during the reign of Trajan. In the 
 former we see a protest against the teaching of Paul, not 
 only in the introduction, but in the prominence throughout 
 given to the Jews and to Jerusalem. In the latter there is a 
 change. It is not that the rightful priority of the Jews is 
 questioned, or that the authority of the law is denied ; on the 
 contrary, Jesus is represented as performing all legal obliga- 
 tions, and nowhere is his essentially Jewish character more 
 distinctly marked. But the law is not of universal obligation, 
 and the privileges of the Jews are not exclusive or absolute. 
 They are opened to believing Gentiles, and may be forfeited 
 by their own conduct. The sending forth of the seventy dis- 
 ciples, according to the number of the nations of the world, and 
 the visit to the Samaritans, the former of which certainly is 
 not historical, typify the universality of the good news, and the 
 opening of the Kingdom of Heaven upon equal terms to the 
 Gentiles. And after the death of Jesus the history of the 
 Church is told in the same spirit. The Jewish element is 
 represented as essential, and the Church at Jerusalem, or 
 rather the Apostles and Elders there, as exercising a rightful 
 authority in matters of discipline. But the Gentiles are en- 
 titled to equal privileges as brethren without being required to 
 submit to circumcision. These works, consequently, are the 
 products of a time when the process of transformation was 
 operating, but was not completed. Probably the writer was 
 unconscious that any such process was going on. He no doubt 
 believed the Church to have reached its final condition, that in 
 which it was to subsist until the coming of the Lord ; and 
 we can see that this was only a stage in the development of 
 doctrine, and that it was impossible that Christianity should 
 have been widely diffused without altogether outgrowing its 
 Jewish mould. 
 
410 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 The inevitable course of events was precipitated by the revolt 
 of tlie Jews in Judaja under Barchocheba, and by the simul- 
 taneous risings in other places. The sufferings which they 
 had endured, and the long delay of the promised restoration, 
 had intensified and embittered their hopes and their enmities. 
 They, as well as the Christians, expected that the Messiah would 
 be revealed in the clouds of heaven, to take vengeance upon the 
 oppressors of his people. They appropriated to themselves the 
 imagery of the Apocalypse with which many among them must 
 have been familiar. They anticipated the treading of the wine- 
 press of the wrath of Jehovah until blood should run out, even 
 up to the horses' bridles, and the fall of the mystic Babylon, 
 drunken with the blood of the holy ones. They looked for the 
 day when the fowls of the air should be summoned to the feast 
 of the flesh of warriors and mighty men ; when the nations 
 gathered together to fight against Jehovah and his people should 
 be slain, even to the last man. And they felt that a duty was 
 imposed upon them to come to the help of the Lord against the 
 mighty, and that if they failed they might expose themselves 
 to the curse of Meroz. They were called to reward Rome as 
 she had rewarded them, and even to double to her what they 
 had endured at her hands ; and they were assured that the 
 appointed hour must have arrived, for the holy city had been 
 trodden under foot, and the time of the Gentiles could not 
 but have been accomplished. The harvest of the earth must be 
 ripe for the sickle. The cup of the wrath of Jehovah must be 
 full and ready to be poured out. The time to favour Zion had, 
 no doubt, arrived ; and they would not be slack to seize it. 
 
 Looking at the revolt of the Jews from the Christian stand- 
 point of the nineteenth century, or even looking at their im- 
 potence when the forces of the empire were directed against 
 them, their conduct appears absurd and their course hopeless. 
 But all this becomes at once intelligible, if we remember 
 their unwavering faith in the prophecies, and the manner in 
 which these were interpreted. And if, ten centuries later, 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 411 
 
 the mere reflex interest that Christians attach to Jerusalem 
 could lead myriads to embark upon a hopeless expedition to 
 recover possession of the place of the sepulchre of Jesus, in 
 full confidence that God would preserve them from famine 
 and pestilence and the sword ; that he would guide them 
 through unknown paths to the holy place, and would deliver 
 the infidels to them as an easy prey on their arrival, we need 
 not be surprised that the intense patriotic and religious fervour 
 of the Jews, and their reliance upon the promised help of 
 Jehovah should have led them to confront even the power of 
 Rome. And the excesses of the Crusaders, their merciless 
 slaughter of every unbeliever, even to the infant at the breast, 
 may also enable us to understand, though not to excuse, the 
 corresponding atrocities of the Jews in the moment of their 
 transient success. 
 
 This outbreak disclosed the gulf that had gradually opened 
 between Jew and Christian. The latter, as such, had no feel- 
 ings connected with Jerusalem itself, excepting by anticipa- 
 tion. It was not as the seat of the Kingdom of David — 
 the sacred city — hallowed by the glories and reverses, the 
 struggles and successes of a thousand years — the scene of the 
 visible manifestation of Jehovah, where he had so long dwelt 
 among his people as their God — nor even as the scene of the 
 crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus that Jerusalem possessed 
 an interest in the minds of the Christians. They looked 
 forward to the time when it would be made holy by the 
 presence of the Christ miraculously displayed, and where as 
 the seat of his Kingdom they would have a place among its 
 inhabitants. Till then there was nothing in Jerusalem itself 
 to awaken their interest; and there was everything in the 
 aspirations and conduct of the revolted Jews to repel them ; 
 they, consequently, refused to join or to assist the movement, 
 and were accordingly treated by Barchocheba as enemies and 
 even as traitors. There was, in fact, just so much of Judaism 
 about them as render it impossible that they could be regarded 
 
412 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 as neutral. As they refused to join the insurgents, they were 
 considered to be against them ; and as they were known to 
 expect the speedy advent of the Messiah to establish his King- 
 dom, their refusal to recognize Barchocheba, who claimed that 
 title, was looked upon as a species of treason. They were 
 accordingly treated with much cruelty, and great numbers were 
 put to death. 
 
 From this time the position of the Jews and Christians was 
 one of mutual antaoronisra. It is significant that the Church 
 established in the new city, built by Hadrian on the site of Jeru- 
 salem, was a Grentile church presided over by Gentile Bishops ; ^ 
 and that contemporaneously with this we hear, for the first 
 time, of the Ebionites as a distinct body. These latter were 
 Jews who regarded Jesus as the Messiah, and had been baptized 
 into his name, but who denied his miraculous conception and 
 his pre-existence, and who maintained the permanent obligation 
 of the law. The information which we possess as to their history 
 and tenets is fragmentary and unreliable, but everything which 
 we are told suggests the conclusion that they were the descendants 
 of the Church at Jerusalem, and maintained in its original form 
 the belief of the first disciples. They admitted the authority 
 of all the Apostles but Paul, and they preserved the Gospel to 
 the Hebrews, presumably the basis of our first Gospel. In 
 a period of development men may separate themselves as 
 effectually from the current of opinion by remaining stationary 
 as by advancing in a wrong direction ; such was the case 
 with the Ebionites. They became heretics, not because they 
 had changed, but because the standard of orthodoxy was altered. 
 They remained zealots of the law in an age that had practically 
 proved its unsuitableness, and faithful to their Judaical tradi- 
 tions after the very name of Jew had become an abomina- 
 tion, both to Christian and heathen. They serve in some 
 degree as a landmark to shew the point of departure of 
 
 1 Euseb., H. E. B. IV., c. 6. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 413 
 
 Christian doctrine, and they thus enable us to appreciate its 
 progress in the three quarters of a century that had elapsed 
 since the career of Paul had terminated. 
 
 This alteration in the aspect of Christianity required some 
 literary expression. The first three Gospels were all primarily 
 Jewish. In each of them Jesus is made to address his invita- 
 tions to the Jews ; and the chief difference in this respect is 
 the greater or less clearness with which the calling of the 
 Gentiles is announced, and the greater or less prominence 
 given to the obligations of the law. Such a picture was, how- 
 ever, no longer adequate. It was inconsistent not indeed with 
 the history of the Church, but with its actual condition ; for 
 the Jews had been excluded, and the good news of the King- 
 dom had become the sole possession of the Gentiles. And, 
 besides this, the belief in the establishment of an earthly 
 kingdom at Jerusalem had been the cause of the revolts of the 
 Jews, and of all the sufiering which these had occasioned. And 
 so long as this belief existed, it formed an inseparable link 
 between Christianity and Judaism ; for the gathering in of the 
 Jews constituted one essential feature of the expected Kingdom. 
 Nowhere, indeed, is this shewn more plainly than in the 
 Apocalypse. But in the existing state of feeling such a belief 
 was necessarily distasteful to the Church ; a decisive proof of 
 which is furnished by the circumstance that shortly after this 
 time the Apocalypse was attributed to the heretic Cerinthus, 
 apparently for no other reason than the repugnance which this 
 tenet excited. 
 
 The idea, too, of the nature and person of Jesus suggested by 
 the earlier Gospels had become insufficient. The feelings with 
 which he was regarded by the Gentile converts had outgrown 
 the conception that had satisfied the generation contemporary 
 with the Apostles. The condition of admission into the Church 
 was that the converts, should profess a belief in Jesus, and 
 be baptised into his name. It is probable that among 
 many of the Gentile churches, at least in Asia Minor, the 
 
414 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 Epistles of Paul were regularly read.^ And these must have 
 familiarized the disciples with the loftier views of the nature 
 of Jesus that Paul entertained. There was something wanting in 
 the literature of the Church then extant, for the brethren in the 
 narratives transmitted to them could only know Jesus according 
 to the flesh ; and this want would he the more perceptible in 
 proportion as the decay or uncertainty of tradition afforded an 
 opening for the introduction of novel views, more or less tinc- 
 tured with the prevailing heresies of the time. 
 
 In an utter ignorance of the circumstances under which the 
 third Gospel originated — time, place, and author being alike 
 matters of conjecture — it is quite possible that at the period in 
 question it was unknown or of little authority in the Church. 
 And if not, its view of the nature and mission of Jesus would 
 not meet the requirements of the age. For, if under one aspect 
 as compared with the two earlier Gospels, it was an advance, 
 under another as compared with the writings of Paul it was 
 retrograde. And this must necessarily have been the case with 
 any account of the Kfe of Jesus, that confined itself within the 
 limits already traced by tradition. So long as these boundaries 
 were not overpassed it was competent to the Jewish or Judaizing 
 brethren to contend for their view of the nature of Jesus and of 
 the Gospel which he had preached. And though the example of 
 Paul might shew that wider views could be contended for, yet he 
 had been enabled to do this only by leaving out of sight the 
 teaching and life of Jesus. And his fate shewed that there 
 was no certainty of success in the conflict. 
 
 It had become necessary, therefore, if the position of the 
 Church was to be assured, to rise to a loftier stand-point than 
 even that which Paul had reached, and to give to the ideas 
 visible from that elevation a concrete form in the human life 
 of Jesus ; and this was accomplished by the author of the 
 
 1 The authority of Paul was, however, disputed. Justin Martyr never mentioned 
 his name, and he confines the number of the Apostles to twelve only — thus by implica- 
 tion excluding Paul. He also declares that those who permit the eating of things 
 offered to idols are false prophets. — Keuss, Hist du Canon, p. 50. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 415 
 
 fourth Gospel. Not, perliaps, that these various objects were 
 consciously present to his mind, but that the position of the 
 Church and the existing state of the dogma presented them as 
 practical questions that demanded an answer ; questions indeed 
 which any one who desired a calm resting place for his own 
 convictions, or a satisfactory basis for the faith of the brethren 
 was required to solve. 
 
 The tone of the fourth Gospel enables us to estimate the 
 extent to which the ideas it embodies had penetrated in the 
 Christian body. The writings of Paul are controversial. If, 
 for a moment, he raises himself above the atmosphere of strife 
 that surrounds him, and reveals to those whom he addresses 
 the loftier ideas with which his contemplations are familiar, he 
 is almost instantly recalled by the necessity of repelling some 
 attack, or vindicating some principle. The most sublime pas- 
 sages often terminate in a seemingly trivial argument or ex- 
 hortation. And upon the hypothesis that the later Epistles 
 are his, it might even be said that the stimulus of controversy 
 was necessary to him ; since these, if less polemical, are also in 
 the same proportion less elevated. But in the fourth Gospel we 
 seem to have passed beyond this stage. There is nothing to 
 indicate any conflict in the writer's own mind, or any antici- 
 pation of objection from others. He appears to put forth his 
 views in full reliance not merely that they are true, but that 
 they will be received without question. No doubt this is in 
 part due to the profound over-mastering character of his own 
 convictions. But this alone would not have been sufficient. 
 He must also have felt that these convictions harmonized with 
 the prevailing sentiments, if they did not express the formal 
 opinions of those for whom he wrote. Upon any other hy- 
 pothesis it would be scarcely possible that some trace of the 
 expectation of denial or opposition should not be found in his 
 work. 
 
 This confidence was abundantly justified by the event. Within 
 half a century from the earliest date that can with any plausi- 
 
416 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 bility be assigned to its composition the new Gospel was received 
 by all the orthodox Churches as the work of the Apostle whose 
 authority it claims. Whatever protests might have been raised 
 had died out, or had been silenced. The picture which it presents 
 of Jesus ; — the figures under which it represents his relations to 
 believers, the love which he disj)lays to his disciples, and the deep 
 personal love that he requires from them in return ; — the mystic 
 union with himself to which he invites them, by means of which 
 they shall be one with the Father ; — at once stimulated and 
 satisfied the emotional aspect of religion, and put the wants 
 of those who, in the actual state of the world, needed some- 
 thing beyond the moral teachings of the first Gospel, and who 
 shrunk from the somewhat coarse enjoyments of the promised 
 millenium. And besides this, it ofiered an object to the aspira- 
 tions of believers which was raised above all the vicissitudes of 
 time, and upon which their eternal hopes might safely be rested. 
 And it justified that separation from the world which had, in fact, 
 become the distinctive position of Christians. The Kingdom 
 of Jesus, to which their first allegiance was due, was not of 
 this world. To them, consequently, the conflicts raging around 
 them, and the fortunes of the various competitors for empire 
 wei-e matters of indiflerence ; and though this indifference might 
 provoke hostility, such a result was only an additional proof of 
 discipleship ; a new mark of their oneness with Jesus. The 
 world hated them, because it had first hated their Master ; but 
 whatever might be the tribulations which they were called upon 
 1o suffer, Jesus had endured the same and had vanquished the 
 world for them as well as for himself. They were not to be 
 taken out of the world ; but they were not to be of it. And 
 while on earth the main object of their efibrts and their prayers 
 was that they might be kept from its evil. 
 
 There was yet another reason for its success ; perhaps the most 
 influential. The view which it presented of the essential natui'e 
 of Jesus — his pre-existence — his oneness with the Father — his 
 divinity — justified to the improved religious consciousness of the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 417 
 
 Church the ■worship that was already largely offered to him. 
 From the first, when the new doctrine was preached among 
 the Gentiles, Jesus was presented as the one object of belief. 
 Faith in him, as the Lord, was the condition of entrance into 
 the Church, and the guarantee of salvation. And that faith 
 necessarily led to worship ; though it did not necessarily imply 
 a belief in his Godhead. There was nothing in the religious 
 conceptions of Gentile converts that rendered it unsuitable for 
 them to pray to a deified mortal, — a man in whom the Spirit 
 of God had been manifested, and who had been raised to the 
 skies. As, however, their ideas of the nature of the Deity 
 became elevated, and especially as they became imbued with 
 the monotheistic doctrines of the Hebrew Scriptures, the question 
 would necessarily intrude how far this worship was compatible 
 with the exclusive claims of Jehovah. And that question could 
 only be answered either by elevating the nature of Jesus, so 
 as to imply equality and union with the one God, or by dis- 
 tinguishing between the worship paid to both. The state of 
 opinion in this respect was, and contimied to be, fluctuating. 
 The practical tendency in the Gentile Churches to pay divine 
 worship to Jesus proved in the end to be irresistible. And 
 this led to such an elevation of his nature in the creed of the 
 Church as might justify the worship. 
 
 Only in Gentile Churches would this tendency be felt. It 
 is sufficient to realize the difierent aspect under which the 
 work of Jesus would appear to a Jewish and a Gentile believer 
 to be satisfied of this. To the Jew the sole claim of Jesus was 
 that he was the predicted Messiah, " the root and ofispring of 
 David," who was to restore his Kingdom in the city which he 
 had founded, though in more than its ancient splendour. Thus 
 viewed he was simply the instrument for fulfiling the covenant 
 long before made with the nation by Jehovah. He offered no new 
 privilege ; he brought no new promise. The promise and the privi- 
 lege were theirs by inheritance. They were the children of Abra- 
 ham, and, as such, heirs of the covenant. The Messiah, whenever 
 
 27 
 
416 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 bility be assigned to its composition the new Gospel was received 
 by all the orthodox Churches as the work of the Apostle whose 
 authority it claims. Whatever protests might have been raised 
 had died out, or had been silenced. The picture which it presents 
 of Jesus ; — the figures under which it represents his relations to 
 believers, the love which he displays to his disciples, and the deep 
 personal love that he requires from them in return ; — the mystic 
 union with himself to which he invites them, by means of which 
 they shall be one with the Father ; — at once stimulated and 
 satisfied the emotional aspect of religion, and put the wants 
 of those who, in the actual state of the world, needed some- 
 thing beyond the moral teachings of the first Gospel, and who 
 shrunk from the somewhat coarse enjoyments of the promised 
 millenium. And besides this, it offered an object to the aspira- 
 tions of believers which was raised above all the vicissitudes of 
 time, and upon which their eternal hopes might safely be rested. 
 And it justified that separation from the world which had, in fact, 
 become the distinctive position of Christians. The Kingdom 
 of Jesus, to which their first allegiance was due, was not of 
 this world. To them, consequently, the conflicts raging around 
 them, and the fortunes of the various competitors for empire 
 were matters of indiff'erence ; and though this indifference might 
 provoke hostility, such a result was only an additional proof of 
 discipleship ; a new mark of their oneness with Jesus. The 
 world hated them, because it had first hated their Master ; but 
 whatever might be the tribvilations which they were called upon 
 to sufier, Jesus had endured the same and had vanquished the 
 world for them as well as for himself. They were not to be 
 taken out of the world ; but they were not to be of it. And 
 while on earth the main object of their efforts and their prayers 
 was that they might be kept from its evil. 
 
 There was yet another reason for its success ; perhaps the most 
 influential. The view which it presented of the essential nature 
 of Jesus — his pre-existence — his oneness with the Father — his 
 divinity — justified to the improved religious consciousness of the 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 417 
 
 Churcli the worsliip that was already largely offered to him. 
 From the first, when the new doctrine was preached among 
 the Gentiles, Jesus was presented as the one object of belief. 
 Faith in him, as the Lord, was the condition of entrance into 
 the Church, and the guarantee of salvation. And that faith 
 necessarily led to worship ; though it did not necessarily imply 
 a belief in his Grodhead. There was nothing in the religious 
 conceptions of Gentile converts that rendered it unsuitable for 
 them to pray to a deified mortal, — a man in whom the Spirit 
 of God had been manifested, and who had been raised to the 
 skies. As, however, their ideas of the nature of the Deity 
 became elevated, and especially as they became imbued with 
 the monotheistic doctrines of the Hebrew Scriptures, the question 
 would necessarily intrude how far this worship was compatible 
 with the exclusive claims of Jehovah. And that question could 
 only be answered either by elevating the nature of Jesus, so 
 as to imply equality and union with the one God, or by dis- 
 tinguishing between the worship paid to both. The state of 
 opinion in this respect was, and continued to be, fluctuating. 
 The practical tendency in the Gentile Churches to pay divine 
 worship to Jesus proved in the end to be irresistible. And 
 this led to such an elevation of his nature in the creed of the 
 Church as might justify the worship. 
 
 Only in Gentile Churches would this tendency be felt. It 
 is sufficient to realize the different aspect under which the 
 work of Jesus would appear to a Jewish and a Gentile believer 
 to be satisfied of this. To the Jew the sole claim of Jesus was 
 that he was the predicted Messiah, " the root and offspring of 
 David," who was to restore his Kingdom in the city which he 
 had founded, though in more than its ancient splendour. Thus 
 viewed he was simply the instrument for fulfiling the covenant 
 long before made with the nation by Jehovah. He offered no new 
 privilege ; he brought no new promise. The promise and the privi- 
 lege were theirs by inheritance. They were the children of Abra- 
 ham, and, as such, heirs of the covenant. The Messiah, whenever 
 
 27 
 
418 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 manifested, could only fulfil the prophecies in which they had 
 trusted. He would be the servant of Jehovah, commissioned 
 and endowed by him to accomplish a purpose pre-determined 
 and foretold. If he had died in order to the accomplishment 
 of this work, this was no more than had been done by prophets 
 and martyrs, even from the beginning of the dispensation. And 
 if he had been raised from the dead, this was no more than the 
 prophecies that foretold his coming had predicted with regard 
 to Elias ! 
 
 But far diflPerent from this was the aspect in which Jesus 
 was necessarily regarded by Gentile believers. To them no 
 promise had been made, or at any rate made known. If 
 they were now invited to participate in the inheritance of the 
 children of Israel, it was because a share in that inheritance 
 had been purchased for them by Jesus ; and their entrance into 
 the promised Kingdom was through him. He had humbled 
 himself that they might be exalted, and had died that they 
 might live. But for him they would have been strangers and 
 foreigners ; without hope, and even without the knowledge of 
 God : for it was through him alone that the one true God was 
 made known to them. Whatever in the present state they pos- 
 sessed of knowledge, consolation, and love ; whatever they an- 
 ticipated in the coming age of admission to the presence of 
 God, and of a share in the unending felicities of heaven, they 
 owed to him. He was not merely an instrument ; he was the 
 conscious, willing mediator, through whom the love of God 
 might flow down to man, and man be enabled to recognize and 
 respond to its manifestations. And, above all, it was, in some 
 mysterious and inexplicable manner, only by means of his 
 voluntary humiliation and suffering and death that this media- 
 tion, with all its bKssful consequences, was possible.^ It is no 
 
 * The Church had not yet degraded the mystery of redemption into a legal process 
 in which God is the pursuer and man the defendant ; and man being decreed to pay 
 a sum far beyond his means is freed from the consequences of his inability because the 
 debt is satisfied out of the infinite merits of Christ. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 419 
 
 wonder, then, that they were unable to keep their views with 
 regard to his nature upon the same level as those of the first 
 Jewish disciples. 
 
 Out of this view would arise, not only a tendency to aggrandize 
 the person of Jesus, to elevate his nature, and to make him the 
 object of worship, but also a deep, and even an exclusive love to 
 himself. As these conceptions were dwelt upon, his character 
 and work would acquire a prominence that sometimes cast 
 into the shade the part which God was represented to have 
 taken in the transaction, and concentrated the feelings of the 
 believer rather upon Jesus, who had been the agent, than 
 upon God, who had been the author of the work. ^ Without 
 pursuing this topic, which only later acquired any practical 
 importance, it is at least obvious that to any one who realized 
 this aspect of his character, not only would Jesus become an 
 object of love, but all the other points of view from which the 
 earlier Evangelists had regarded him would become compara- 
 tively insignificant. It was a small matter that he had been a 
 teacher of righteousness, in comparison with the love that he 
 had shewn in laying down his life for his friends ; or that he 
 was the Son of David, in comparison with his voluntary abase- 
 ment in becoming flesh, and exposing himself to the miscon- 
 structions and insults of the Jews. The incidents that had been 
 specially relied upon to prove his right to be recognized as the 
 Messiah became trivial and unimportant. Everj^hing, indeed, 
 faded into littleness, in comparison with the one central fact 
 that, for the sake of the Gentiles, and in order to bring them 
 within the scope of the promises, Jesus, the pre-existing Logos 
 
 1 This is the tendency of modern Evangelicalism. Any collection of hymns in use 
 among the Low Church or orthodox Dissenters will afford abundant evidence of this. 
 In a hymn, which is said to have been distributed by hundreds of thousands, the singer 
 addressing Jesus, is made to say, "All my love shall centre, on thee and thee alone." 
 Contrast with this, from the lips of Jesus himself, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength." It will be 
 seen that both Paul and the author of the fourth Gospel condemn this tendency by 
 implication. It had not even at the time the latter wrote acquired any such develop- 
 ment as to need explicit condemnation. 
 
420 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 — the only begotten ^ of the Father — the framer of the worlds, 
 had become man, and as man had lived and suffered and died. 
 
 Under the influence of these feelings the fourth Gospel ap- 
 pears to have been composed. The author, obviously, writes out 
 of the abundance of his heart. It is not a theologian who has 
 reasoned out a scheme which he proposes to support by argument 
 whom we have before us. It is a believer in whom deep and pro- 
 longed meditation on the person and life of Jesus, and a vivid 
 realization of all that he and his Grentile fellow-converts gain 
 by his death, have kindled a fervid love, and have inspired a 
 conception of his Lord corresponding to the love he had dis- 
 played and awakened. It was no mere rhetorician who imagined 
 the lesson of humility conveyed by the washing of the feet of 
 the disciples, or who penned the tender and elevated discourse 
 with which Jesus terminates his human intercourse with them, 
 or who gave so endearing an aspect to the joys of heaven. 
 These and numerous other passages are the natural unforced 
 expression of deep feeling and assured conviction. It is true, 
 no doubt, that the work has a kind of dramatic completeness 
 and consistency — that the incidents are so marshalled, and the 
 discourses so arranged, as to bring into ever-increasing relief 
 the divinity of Jesus and the blindness of the Jews — that the 
 termination is foreshadowed from the beginning, and that all 
 the events related lead up to the catastrophe. But this art, if 
 such it be, is " an art that nature makes." This is the form 
 in which the heavenly drama depicts itself to the imagination 
 of the writer — the necessary process through which the light 
 of the world must pass in its conflict with darkness. Here and 
 there are special phrases and incidents called forth by the con- 
 troversies of the day ; but these are exceptional. The work is 
 not primarily polemical — though its form is necessarily, in some 
 degree, determined by the relation of the author's own mind to 
 
 1 This terra, novoyevTjf, appears intended to contradict the views of those who re- 
 garded the Word — the Son — the "Wisdom, etc., etc., as so many separate emanations 
 or offsprings of Jehovah. 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 421 
 
 prevailing opinions. But the main object is to raise the idea 
 of Jesus above the atmosphere of controversy — to depict him 
 as he is in himself — and thus, by unveiling his true image, to 
 reduce to their real value all the false or inadequate semblances 
 with which the Church had till then been deluded. 
 
 In this object the author has only half succeeded. In the aspect 
 of Jesus, indeed, which is presented to believers, there is little to 
 desire. The picture of care, watchfulness, and foresight, — of an 
 union begun on earth, to be perfected in heaven ; — of forbear- 
 ance, humility, and sympathy — all prompted and pervaded by a 
 love stronger than death, remains, and, probably, will ever remain 
 unsurpassed. But in that aspect which is presented to the Jews 
 it must be confessed there is something distasteful and un- 
 dignified. The perpetual self-laudation becomes almost mono- 
 tonous ; — we can scarcely be otherwise than weary of the 
 " hard sayings " apparently designed to disgust those to whom 
 they were necessarily unintelligible ; — we are repelled by 
 the want of forbearance to inevitable ignorance, and of pity 
 to the imthankful and unworthy. Hardly, indeed, can we 
 escape the feeling that those who saw only this aspect of his 
 character were not without excuse when they rejected him. 
 And this feeling is strengthened by the circumstance that his 
 life appears to be without either plan or object. Nothing that 
 he does is intelligible from a human point of view. This 
 feature, indeed, may be regarded by modern Christians as a 
 proof that he belonged to some higher sphere. But to those 
 among whom he is represented as living and moving, it could 
 only have rendered him the more inexplicable, and thus have 
 justified their refusal to recognize his claim. 
 
 In spite of the novel aspect under which the life and teaching 
 of Jesus are depicted in the fourth Gospel, the author has no- 
 where broken with Christian tradition, excepting, perhaps, in 
 the one point of the relation of Jesus to his countrymen. In 
 everything else there are links by which his views are 
 connected with those of the earlier Evangelists. This is the 
 
422 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 natural result of his stand-point, and distlnguislies him from 
 contemporary heretics. He does not, as they did, ignore the 
 traditions of the Church — he adopts and transforms them. The 
 Jesus whom he depicts is no phantom, but is made flesh — ^he is 
 the Jesus of Nazareth, though not the prophet of Galilee — the 
 Jesus to whom John bore witness, though he is neither baptized 
 nor tempted — the worker of mighty works, though many of 
 them are new and all have a symbolical or dogmatic meaning 
 which is absent in the account of the Synoptics. He drives 
 traffickers from the Temple, but it is at the beginning and not 
 at the close of his ministry. He makes his entry into Jeru- 
 salem riding upon an ass, and so in fact fulfils the prophecy, 
 but his disciples attach no importance to the event, and only 
 after he is glorified remember that it had occurred. He is taken 
 before Pilate as King of the Jews, but he disclaims that cha- 
 racter and declares his sole mission to be to bear witness to the 
 truth ; and so throughout. The material foundation is the same, 
 but the structure erected upon it is profoundly modified, and in 
 most parts altogether original. 
 
 It is uncertain how far the incidents related by this writer 
 alone are to be regarded as his own invention. Possibly he 
 has only selected and modified traditions that were current 
 in the circle in which he Kved. The story of the raising of 
 Lazarus was probably the result of an unconscious development 
 of the parable, and not of a deliberate transformation on the 
 part of the Evangelist. The identification of Lazarus as a 
 brother of Martha and Mary, which gives the story a point 
 of connection with the earlier history, and the details of the 
 scene are no doubt due to his imagination. So the strange 
 legend of the Pool of Bethesda, the marvellous troubling of 
 the waters, and their healing virtue in consequence, — a 
 legend which could only have grown up outside Judasa, — was 
 probably current in the community. We know that there were 
 abundant stories of this nature attributed to Jesus, and it is, 
 perhaps, more probable that the unknown author of the fourth 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 423 
 
 Gospel employed such of these as commended themselves to his 
 judgment, or were more consistent with the object of his work, 
 than that he deliberately invented them. 
 
 The view thus suggested may be assailed as derogatory to 
 the writer,^ and as inconsistent with what we shovdd naturally 
 expect from him. It may be said on the one hand that no 
 one who had composed such a work would be likely to sink his 
 own individuality and allow its composition to be attributed to 
 another ; and on the other, that a man so capable of imagining 
 and portraying the highest exemplar of virtue and truth would 
 not in his own person have perpetrated a practical lie, by at- 
 tributing to an inspired Apostle that which was the work of 
 an uninspired disciple. With regard to the former of these 
 objections it may be sufficient to say that not a few Christians, 
 prior to the composition of the fourth Gospel, had died in support 
 of their belief, and the abnegation of literary fame for the sake 
 of promoting the cause of Christ, and of the Church, was 
 certainly a smaller sacrifice. And with regard to the second, 
 it would scarcely have been intelligible to the writer, or to any 
 Christian of the age. The object of the work was not self- 
 aggrandizement, but the glory of Jesus and the good of the 
 
 ^ Much in the same way as the suggestion of the Bishop of Natal with regard to 
 the authorship of the Elohistic portions of Genesis, and the Book of Deuteronomy, 
 haye been. "With regard to the invectives heaped upon the bishop for having accused 
 of forgery two such men as Samuel and Jeremiah, there are two remarks to be made : 
 1 — What we term literary forgery was practiced not merely without scruple, but even 
 without a suspicion of impropriety in all early ages. Whenever anyone believed that 
 he had important truths to announce, which, if resting upon his own authority, 
 would be powerless to influence the public mind — the obvious and natural course was 
 to attribute them either to divine inspiration or to some ancient and venerated name. 
 The writer of the Book of Proverbs, for instance, who certainly was not Solomon, 
 no more dreamed of wrong in putting the name of the renowned monarch at the 
 head of his collection, than did the later Greek writer who gave the name of ^sop to 
 his fables, or the Sophist who, as a literary exercise, wrote the Epistles of Phalaris. 
 And 2 — Samuel offered up Agag as a sacrifice to Jehovah (hewed Agag in pieces before 
 Jehovah) after his life had been spared by his captor, and Jeremiah sanctioned the 
 slaughter of the high priests of Baal by Josiah. Is forgery of the kind suggested 
 so much worse than human sacrifice, or burning of heretics, that the men who per- 
 formed or sanctioned the one from a mistaken sense of duty were necessarily in- 
 capable of the other ? 
 
424 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 brotherhood ; and the only question would be how these could 
 be best promoted. We might almost say that its object was 
 not truth but edification ; but this would not accurately re- 
 present the writer's point of view ; for he believed that he 
 held the truth. Probably, almost certainly, he felt that he had 
 the help of the promised Paraclete, and that the original of the 
 likeness which he drew had been revealed to him by the Holy 
 Spirit. And if, as many collateral circumstances indicate, the 
 work was composed at Ephesus, and was connected with the 
 traditions or opinions current in that church, and even though 
 modified by the writer's own individuality, he might well believe 
 that those traditions had proceeded from the Apostle who had 
 so long presided there, and that upon his testimony the Gospel 
 was really founded. 
 
 The writings of Paul, and the fourth Gospel, have been the 
 principal sources from which later Christian writers have drawn 
 their proofs in support of the orthodox doctrine of the Church, 
 though that doctrine differs profoundly from the view held by 
 either writer. This difference has been partly the result of the 
 necessity imposed upon Apologists to elevate the nature of Jesus, 
 in order to justify the worship paid to him ; and, in part, it has 
 been owing to a misconception of the true meaning of the lan- 
 guage employed. It is not necessary to say anything more as 
 to the former of these tendencies, but a few words in conclusion 
 may be permitted in order to illustrate the latter. 
 
 Much of the phraseology employed by Paul, and by the author 
 of the fourth Gospel, upon which modern orthodox deductions 
 are based, was, as we have seen, borrowed from a peculiar philo- 
 sophy. And the object of that philosophy was not to exalt the 
 attributes, or manifestations, of persons to which this phraseology 
 was applied, but to remove the God whom it recognized from all 
 relation to matter, either as its origin or its ruler. The functions 
 exercised by the Word or wisdom of God were functions which 
 
THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 425 
 
 thinkers of that school of philosophy deemed it derogatory to 
 ascribe to God himself. They implied relation and imperfection, 
 and therefore could not belong to the one absolute and perfect 
 Being. The creation of the worlds, for instance, which to 
 modern theologians is a conclusive proof of the absolute di- 
 vinity of Jesus, was originally attributed to the Word of God 
 for precisely the opposite reason. That all things were made 
 by Jesus as the Logos was a mark, not of equality, but of in- 
 feriority. And the same was the case even when God was 
 represented as making the worlds by him ; for this, though re- 
 moving the idea of moral imperfection from one who was only 
 performing the work of the Father, preserved his relative cha- 
 racter, and necessarily implied subordination and dependence. 
 
 There is nothing, indeed, in any of these writings inconsistent 
 with this view. It is true that Jesus, in the fourth Gospel, is 
 made to claim oneness with the Father. But the writer himself 
 explains the nature of this union in a way to remove all mis- 
 conception, when he describes Jesus as praying that his disciples 
 may be one with him, in the same manner that he is one with 
 the Father. And though the Jews are represented as having 
 understood him to claim to be God, yet this is only one of the 
 many misconceptions attributed to them, owing to their taking 
 literally what Jesus had spoken in a figure. And the mistake 
 is immediately corrected by a quotation from their Scriptures, 
 in which the word " gods " is used figuratively ; thus teaching 
 them that it was only in the same sense that the word had been 
 used by Jesus himself. And in all the writings of Paul, high as 
 is the view that he entertains of the nature and oflEice of Jesus, 
 his inferiority to the Father is uniformly preserved. 
 
 In proj)ortion as the Church, by defining its own creed, 
 separated itself from other societies, the opinions these latter 
 held were first rejected and then forgotten. And the circum- 
 stance that the immense majority of Christians belonged to 
 the poor and uneducated classes, necessarily gave r preponder- 
 ance to those teachers whose knowledge and mode of thought 
 
426 
 
 THE JESUS OF HISTORY. 
 
 were most nearly on a level with the minds of their hearers, 
 and whose doctrines were thus hest adapted to their apprehen- 
 sion. And hence there was a tendency to depreciate philosophy, 
 and to proclaim the incompetency of human reason of itself 
 to deal with questions touching the nature of God, or his re- 
 lation to the world and man, or his purposes with regard to the 
 unhelievers and the faithful. Corresponding with this depre- 
 ciation of the imaided reason, there was an elevation of the 
 Scripture as the sole and sufficient source of all religious truth, 
 and of the Church as its one infallible interpreter. And, when 
 this point was reached, it was inevitable, under the influence of 
 the prevailing sentiment with regard to Jesus, that the very 
 phrases which, as at first employed, indicated his inferiority, 
 should, when their real meaning was lost, be quoted to prove 
 his equality and even his identity with God. 
 
 STJiPHE>- AUSli>-, PKlNlKlt, HKllTFOaD. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 JUtW 
 
 i^9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH #^ 
 
 i5230 
 
 
 PrtniM) 
 In USA