TESTAMENT
535
TESTAMENT
evident did it seem to them that these texts narrated
faithfully the history of early Christianity. What
aroused the distrust of modern critics was the fancied
discovery that these writings although sincere were
none the less biased. Composed, as was said, by
beUe\-ers and for believers or, at all events, in favour
of the Faith, they aim much more at rendering cred-
ible the Ufe and teaching of Jesus than at simply relat-
ing what He did and preached. And then they say
these texts contain irreconcilable contradictions which
testify to uncertainty and variety in the tradition
taken up by them at different stages of its develop-
ment.
(1) It is agreed that the authors of the New Testa- ment were sincere. Were they deceived? If so the wTiting of truthful history should, apparently, be given up altogether. They were near the events: all eye-witnesses or depending immediately on eye-wit- nesses. In their view the first condition to be allowed to "testify" on Gospel history was to have seen the Lord, especiallv the risen Lord (Acts, i, 21-22; I Cor., ix, 11; xi, 23;"I John, i, 1-1; Luke, i, 1-4). These witnesses guarantee matters easj' to observe and at the same time of supreme importance to their readers. The latter must have controlled assertions claiming to impose an obligation of faith and attended with considerable practical consequences; all the more so as this control was easy, since tlje matters were in ques- tion that had taken place in public and not "in a cor- ner", as St. Paul says (Acts, x.xvi, 26; cf. ii, 22; iii, 13-14). Besides, what reasonable hope was there to get books accepted which contained an altered form of the tradition familiar from the teaching of the Churches for more than thirty years, and cherished with all the affection that was borne to Jesus Christ in person? In this sentiment we must seek the final reason for the tenacity of ecclesiastical traditions. Finally, these texts control each other mutually. Written in different circumstances, with varying preoccupations, why do they agree in substance? For history only knows one Christ and one Gospel; and this history is based on the New Testament. Objective reality alone accounts for this agreement.
It is true that these same texts present a multitude of differences in details, but the variety and uncer- tainty to which that may give rise does not weaken the stability of the whole from a historical point of view. Moreover, that this is compatible with the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, see Inspiratio.v of the Bible. The causes of these apparent contradictions have been long since pointed out: viz., fragmentary narratives of the same events abruptly put side by side; different perspectives of the same object according as one takes a front or a side view; different ex-jiressions to mean the same thing; adaptation, not alteration, of the subject-mat- ter according to the circumstances a feature brought into relief; documents or traditions not agreeing on all points, and which nevertheless the sacred WTiter has related, without claiming to guarantee them in everything or decide the question of their divergence. These are not subtleties or subterfuges invented to excuse as far as possible our Evangelists. Similar observations would be made about profane authors if there was anything to be gained by doing so. Try for example to harmonize Tacitus with himself in " His- torian", V, iv, and V, ix. But Herodotus, Polybius, Tacitus, Livy did not narrate the history of a God come on earth to make men submit their whole life to His word. It is under the influence of naturalistic prejudice that some people ea-sily, and as it were a priori, are oppos<"d to the testimony of the Biblical authors. Have not recent discoveries come to show that St. Luke is a more exact historian than Flavins Josephus? It is true that the authors of the New Testament were all Christians, but to be truthfid must we be indifferent towards the facts we relate?
Love does not necessarily make us bUnd or untruthful,
on the contrary it can allow us to penetrate more
deeply into the knowledge of our subjects. In any
case, hate exposes the historian to a greater danger of
partiality; and is it possible to be without love or
hate towards Christianity?
(2) These being the conditions, if the New Testa- ment has handed on to us a counterfeit of history, the falsification must have come about at an early date, and be assignable neither to the insincerity nor the incompetence of its authors. It is the early Christian tradition on which they depend that becomes sus- pected in its vital sources, as if it had been formed under influences of rehgious instincts, which irrevo- cably doomed it to be mythical, legendary, or, again, idealistic, as the symboUsts put it. What it trans- mitted to us was not so much the historical figtu-es of Christ (in the modern acceptation of the term) as His prophetic image. The Jesus of the New Testament had become such as He might or ought to have been imagined to be by one who saw in Him the Messias. It is, doubtless, from the saying of Isaias, "Behold a virgin shall conceive", that the belief in the super- natural conception of Jesus springs — a belief which is definitely formulated in the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Such is the ex-jolanation current amongst unbelievers of to-day, and amongst an ever- increasing number of liberal Protestants. It is noto- riously that of Harnack.
Avowedlj- or no, this way of explaining the forma- tion of Gospel tradition has been jmt forward princi- pally to account for the supernatural element with which the New Testament is permeated: the objec- tivity of this element is refused recognition for reasons of a philosophical order, anterior to any criticism of the te.xt. The starting-point of this explanation is a merely speculative prejudice. To the objection that the position of Strauss became untenable the day that critics began to admit that the New Testament was a work of the first century, and therefore a witness closely following on the events, Harnack answers that twenty years or even less suffice for the formation of legends. As regards the abstract possibility of the formation of a legend that may be, but it still remains to be proved that it is possible that a legend should be formed, still more, that it should win acceptance, in the same concrete conditions as the Gcspel narrative. How is it that the apocryjjha never succeeded in forcing their way into the mighty current that bore the canonical WTitings to all the Churches, and got them accepted? Why were the oldest known to us not composed till at least a century after the events?
Furthermore, if the Gos]3el narrati\e is really an exegetical creation based on the Old Testament proph- ecies, how are we to explain its being what it is? There is no reference in it to texts of which the Mes- sianic nature is patent and accepted by the Jewish schools. It is strange that the "legend" of the Magi come from the East at the summons of a star to adore the infant Jesus should have left aside completely the star of Jacob (Num., xxiv, 17) and the famous pas- sage in Isaias, Ix, 6-8. On the other hand, texts are appealed to of which the Messianism is not obvious, and which do not seem to have been commonly in- terpreted (then, at least) by the Jews in the same way as by the Christians. This is exactly the ca.se with St. Alatthew, ii, 15, 18, 23, and perhaps i, 23. The Evangelists represent Jesus as the popular preacher, par excellence, the orator of the crowd in town and country; they show Him to us whip in hand, and they put into His mouth words more stinging si ill addressed to the Pharisees. According to St. John (vii, 28, 37; xii, 44), He "cries out" even in the Temple. Can that trait in his physiognomy be readily explained by Isaias, xlii, 2, who had foretold of the servant of Yahweh : " He .shall not cry nor have respect to person, neither shall his voice be heard abroad"? Again,
