The Life of Jesus | Page 3

other explanations would have been necessary. But it is not my practice to do over again what has been already done well. To cite only books written in French, those who will consult the following excellent writings[1] will there find explained a number of points upon which I have been obliged to be very brief:
_��tudes Critiques sur l'��vangile de saint Matthieu_, par M. Albert R��ville, pasteur de l'��glise Wallonne de Rotterdam.[2]
_Histoire de la Th��ologie Chr��tienne au Si��cle Apostolique_, par M. Reuss, professeur �� la Facult�� de Th��ologie et au S��minaire Protestant de Strasbourg.[3]
_Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les Deux Si��cles Ant��rieurs �� l'��re Chr��tienne_, par M. Michel Nicolas, professeur �� la Facult�� de Th��ologie Protestante de Montauban.[4]
_Vie de J��sus_, par le Dr. Strauss; traduite par M. Littr��, Membre de l'Institut.[5]
_Revue de Th��ologie et de Philosophie Chr��tienne_, publi��e sous la direction de M. Colani, de 1850 �� 1857.--_Nouvelle Revue de Th��ologie_, faisant suite �� la pr��c��dente depuis 1858.[6]
[Footnote 1: While this work was in the press, a book has appeared which I do not hesitate to add to this list, although I have not read it with the attention it deserves--_Les ��vangiles_, par M. Gustave d'Eichthal. Premi��re Partie: _Examen Critique et Comparatif des Trois Premiers ��vangiles_. Paris, Hachette, 1863.]
[Footnote 2: Leyde, Noothoven van Goor, 1862. Paris, Cherbuliez. A work crowned by the Society of The Hague for the defence of the Christian religion.]
[Footnote 3: Strasbourg, Treuttel and Wurtz. 2nd edition. 1860. Paris, Cherbuliez.]
[Footnote 4: Paris, Michel L��vy fr��res, 1860.]
[Footnote 5: Paris, Ladrange. 2nd edition, 1856.]
[Footnote 6: Strasbourg, Treuttel and Wurtz. Paris, Cherbuliez.]
The criticism of the details of the Gospel texts especially, has been done by Strauss in a manner which leaves little to be desired. Although Strauss may be mistaken in his theory of the compilation of the Gospels;[1] and although his book has, in my opinion, the fault of taking up the theological ground too much, and the historical ground too little,[2] it will be necessary, in order to understand the motives which have guided me amidst a crowd of minuti?, to study the always judicious, though sometimes rather subtle argument, of the book, so well translated by my learned friend, M. Littr��.
[Footnote 1: The great results obtained on this point have only been acquired since the first edition of Strauss's work. The learned critic has, besides, done justice to them with much candor in his after editions.]
[Footnote 2: It is scarcely necessary to repeat that not a word in Strauss's work justifies the strange and absurd calumny by which it has been attempted to bring into disrepute with superficial persons, a work so agreeable, accurate, thoughtful, and conscientious, though spoiled in its general parts by an exclusive system. Not only has Strauss never denied the existence of Jesus, but each page of his book implies this existence. The truth is, Strauss supposes the individual character of Jesus less distinct for us than it perhaps is in reality.]
I do not believe I have neglected any source of information as to ancient evidences. Without speaking of a crowd of other scattered data, there remain, respecting Jesus, and the time in which he lived, five great collections of writings--1st, The Gospels, and the writings of the New Testament in general; 2d, The compositions called the "Apocrypha of the Old Testament;" 3d, The works of Philo; 4th, Those of Josephus; 5th, The Talmud. The writings of Philo have the priceless advantage of showing us the thoughts which, in the time of Jesus, fermented in minds occupied with great religious questions. Philo lived, it is true, in quite a different province of Judaism to Jesus, but, like him, he was very free from the littlenesses which reigned at Jerusalem; Philo is truly the elder brother of Jesus. He was sixty-two years old when the Prophet of Nazareth was at the height of his activity, and he survived him at least ten years. What a pity that the chances of life did not conduct him into Galilee! What would he not have taught us!
Josephus, writing specially for pagans, is not so candid. His short notices of Jesus, of John the Baptist, of Judas the Gaulonite, are dry and colorless. We feel that he seeks to present these movements, so profoundly Jewish in character and spirit, under a form which would be intelligible to Greeks and Romans. I believe the passage respecting Jesus[1] to be authentic. It is perfectly in the style of Josephus, and if this historian has made mention of Jesus, it is thus that he must have spoken of him. We feel only that a Christian hand has retouched the passage, has added a few words--without which it would almost have been blasphemous[2]--has perhaps retrenched or modified some expressions.[3] It must be recollected that the literary fortune of Josephus was made by