按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ited as parallel； is in reality wholly different。 Not only did Sakyamuni live five centuries earlier than Jesus； among a people that have at no time possessed the art of insuring authenticity in their records of events； and at an era which is at best but dimly discerned through the mists of fable and legend； but the work which he achieved lies wholly out of the course of European history； and it is only in recent times that his career has presented itself to us as a problem needing to be solved。 Jesus； on the other hand； appeared in an age which is familiarly and in many respects minutely known to us； and among a people whose fortunes we can trace with historic certainty for at least seven centuries previous to his birth； while his life and achievements have probably had a larger share in directing the entire subsequent intellectual and moral development of Europe than those of any other man who has ever lived。 Nevertheless； the details of his personal career are shrouded in an obscurity almost as dense as that which envelops the life of the remote founder of Buddhism。
This phenomenon； however； appears less strange and paradoxical when we come to examine it more closely。 A little reflection will disclose to us several good reasons why the historical records of the life of Jesus should be so scanty as they are。 In the first place； the activity of Jesus was private rather than public。 Confined within exceedingly narrow limits； both of space and of duration； it made no impression whatever upon the politics or the literature of the time。 His name does not occur in the pages of any contemporary writer； Roman； Greek； or Jewish。 Doubtless the case would have been wholly different； had he； like Mohammed； lived to a ripe age； and had the exigencies of his peculiar position as the Messiah of the Jewish people brought him into relations with the Empire； though whether； in such case； the success of his grand undertaking would have been as complete as it has actually been； may well be doubted。
Secondly； Jesus did not； like Mohammed and Paul； leave behind him authentic writings which might serve to throw light upon his mental development as well as upon the external facts of his career。 Without the Koran and the four genuine Epistles of Paul； we should be nearly as much in the dark concerning these great men as we now are concerning the historical Jesus。 We should be compelled to rely； in the one case； upon the untrustworthy gossip of Mussulman chroniclers； and in the other case upon the garbled statements of the 〃Acts of the Apostles；〃 a book written with a distinct dogmatic purpose； sixty or seventy years after the occurrence of the events which it professes to record。
It is true； many of the words of Jesus； preserved by hearsay tradition through the generation immediately succeeding his death； have come down to us； probably with little alteration； in the pages of the three earlier evangelists。 These are priceless data； since； as we shall see； they are almost the only materials at our command for forming even a partial conception of the character of Jesus' work。 Nevertheless； even here the cautious inquirer has only too often to pause in face of the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic utterances of the great teacher from the later interpolations suggested by the dogmatic necessities of the narrators。 Bitterly must the historian regret that Jesus had no philosophic disciple； like Xenophon； to record his Memorabilia。 Of the various writings included in the New Testament； the Apocalypse alone （and possibly the Epistle of Jude） is from the pen of a personal acquaintance of Jesus； and besides this； the four epistles of Paul； to the Galatians； Corinthians； and Romans； make up the sum of the writings from which we may expect contemporary testimony。 Yet from these we obtain absolutely nothing of that for which we are seeking。 The brief writings of Paul are occupied exclusively with the internal significance of Jesus' work。 The epistle of Judeif it be really written by Jesus' brother of that name； which is doubtfulis solely a polemic directed against the innovations of Paul。 And the Apocalypse； the work of the fiery and imaginative disciple John； is confined to a prophetic description of the Messiah's anticipated return； and tells us nothing concerning the deeds of that Messiah while on the earth。
Here we touch upon our third consideration；the consideration which best enables us to see why the historic notices of Jesus are so meagre。 Rightly considered； the statement with which we opened this article is its own explanation。 The Jesus of history is so little known just because the Christ of dogma is so well known。＇16＇ Other teachersPaul； Mohammed； Sakyamunihave come merely as preachers of righteousness； speaking in the name of general principles with which their own personalities were not directly implicated。 But Jesus； as we shall see； before the close of his life； proclaimed himself to be something more than a preacher of righteousness。 He announced himselfand justly； from his own point of viewas the long…expected Messiah sent by Jehovah to liberate the Jewish race。 Thus the success of his religious teachings became at once implicated with the question of his personal nature and character。 After the sudden and violent termination of his career； it immediately became all…important with his followers to prove that he was really the Messiah； and to insist upon the certainty of his speedy return to the earth。 Thus the first generation of disciples dogmatized about him； instead of narrating his life；a task which to them would have seemed of little profit。 For them the all…absorbing object of contemplation was the immediate future rather than the immediate past。 As all the earlier Christian literature informs us； for nearly a century after the death of Jesus； his followers lived in daily anticipation of his triumphant return to the earth。 The end of all things being so near at hand； no attempt was made to insure accurate and complete memoirs for the use of a posterity which was destined； in Christian imagination； never to arrive。 The first Christians wrote but little； even Papias； at the end of a century； preferring second…hand or third…hand oral tradition to the written gospels which were then beginning to come into circulation。＇17＇ Memoirs of the life and teachings of Jesus were called forth by the necessity of having a written standard of doctrine to which to appeal amid the growing differences of opinion which disturbed the Church。 Thus the earlier gospels exhibit； though in different degrees； the indications of a modifying； sometimes of an overruling dogmatic purpose。 There is； indeed； no conscious violation of historic truth； but from the varied mass of material supplied by tradition； such incidents are selected as are fit to support the views of the writers concerning the personality of Jesus。 Accordingly； while the early gospels throw a strong light upon the state of Christian opinion at the dates when they were successively composed； the information which they give concerning Jesus himself is； for that very reason； often vague； uncritical； and contradictory。 Still more is this true of the fourth gospel； written late in the second century； in which historic tradition is moulded in the interests of dogma until it becomes no longer recognizable； and in the place of the human Messiah of the earlier accounts； we have a semi…divine Logos or Aeon； detached from God； and incarnate for a brief season in the likeness of man。
＇16＇ 〃Wer einmal vergottert worden ist； der hat seine Mensetheit unwiederbringlich eingebusst。〃Strauss； Der alte und der neue Glaube； p。 76。
＇17＇ 〃Roger was the attendant of Thomas ＇Becket＇ during his sojourn at Pontigny。 We might have expected him to be very full on that part of his history； but； writing doubtless mainly for the monks of Pontigny； he says that HE WILL NOT ENLARGE UPON WHAT EVERY ONE KNOWS； and cuts that part very short。〃Freeman； Historical Essays； 1st series； p。 90。
Not only was history subordinated to dogma by the writers of the gospel…narratives； but in the minds of the Fathers of the Church who assisted in determining what writings should be considered canonical； dogmatic prepossession went very much further than critical acumen。 Nor is this strange when we reflect that critical discrimination in questions of literary authenticity is one of the latest acquisitions of the cultivated human mind。 In the early ages of the Church the evidence of the genuineness of any literary production was never weighed critically； writings containing doctrines acceptable to the majority of Christians were quoted as authoritative while writings which supplied no dogmatic want were overlooked； or perhaps condemned as apocryphal。 A striking instance of this is furnished by the fortunes of the Apocalypse。 Although perhaps the best authenticated work in the New Testament collection； its millenarian doctrines caused it to become unpopular as the Church gradually ceased to look for the speedy return of the Messiah； and； accordingly； as the canon assumed a definite shape； it was placed among the 〃Antilegomena；〃 or doubtful books； and continued to hold a precarious position until after the time of the Protestant Reformati