the unseen world and other essays-第22章

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！


ers　had　already　given　much　trouble　to　the　Roman　authorities；　who　were　not　likely　to　scrutinize　critically　the　peculiar　claims　of　Jesus。　And　when　the　chief　priests　accused　him　before　Pilate　of　professing　to　be　〃King　of　the　Jews；〃　this　claim　could　in　Roman　apprehension　bear　but　one　interpretation。　The　offence　was　treason；　punishable；　save　in　the　case　of　Roman　citizens；　by　crucifixion。

＇21＇　Phases　of　Faith；　pp。　158…164。


Such　in　its　main　outlines　is　the　historic　career　of　Jesus；　as　constructed　by　our　author　from　data　furnished　chiefly　by　the　first　gospel。　Connected　with　the　narrative　there　are　many　interesting　topics　of　discussion；　of　which　our　rapidly　diminishing　space　will　allow　us　to　select　only　one　for　comment。　That　one　is　perhaps　the　most　important　of　all；　namely；　the　question　as　to　how　far　Jesus　anticipated　the　views　of　Paul　in　admitting　Gentiles　to　share　in　the　privileges　of　the　Messianic　kingdom。　Our　author　argues；　with　much　force；　that　the　designs　of　Jesus　were　entirely　confined　to　the　Jewish　people；　and　that　it　was　Paul　who　first；　by　admitting　Gentiles　to　the　Christian　fold　without　requiring　them　to　live　like　Jews；　gave　to　Christianity　the　character　of　a　universal　religion。　Our　author　reminds　us　that　the　third　gospel　is　not　to　be　depended　upon　in　determining　this　point；　since　it　manifestly　puts　Pauline　sentiments　into　the　mouth　of　Jesus；　and　in　particular　attributes　to　Jesus　an　acquaintance　with　heretical　Samaria　which　the　first　gospel　disclaims。　He　argues　that　the　apostles　were　in　every　respect　Jews；　save　in　their　belief　that　Jesus　was　the　Messiah；　and　he　pertinently　asks；　if　James；　who　was　the　brother　of　Jesus；　and　Peter　and　John；　who　were　his　nearest　friends；　unanimously　opposed　Paul　and　stigmatized　him　as　a　liar　and　heretic；　is　it　at　all　likely　that　Jesus　had　ever　distinctly　sanctioned　such　views　as　Paul　maintained？

In　the　course　of　many　years'　reflection　upon　this　point；　we　have　several　times　been　inclined　to　accept　the　narrow　interpretation　of　Jesus'　teaching　here　indicated；　yet；　on　the　whole；　we　do　not　believe　it　can　ever　be　conclusively　established。　In　the　first　place　it　must　be　remembered　that　if　the　third　gospel　throws　a　Pauline　colouring　over　the　events　which　it　describes；　the　first　gospel　also　shows　a　decidedly　anti…Pauline　bias；　and　the　one　party　was　as　likely　as　the　other　to　attribute　its　own　views　to　Jesus　himself。　One　striking　instance　of　this　tendency　has　been　pointed　out　by　Strauss；　who　has　shown　that　the　verses　Matt。　v。　17…20　are　an　interpolation。　The　person　who　teaches　men　to　break　the　commandments　is　undoubtedly　Paul；　and　in　order　to　furnish　a　text　against　Paul's　followers；　the　〃Nicolaitans；〃　Jesus　is　made　to　declare　that　he　came　not　to　destroy　one　tittle　of　the　law；　but　to　fulfil　the　whole　in　every　particular。　Such　an　utterance　is　in　manifest　contradiction　to　the　spirit　of　Jesus'　teaching；　as　shown　in　the　very　same　chapter；　and　throughout　a　great　part　of　the　same　gospel。　He　who　taught　in　his　own　name　and　not　as　the　scribes；　who　proclaimed　himself　Lord　over　the　Sabbath；　and　who　manifested　from　first　to　last　a　more　than　Essenian　contempt　for　rites　and　ceremonies；　did　not　come　to　fulfil　the　law　of　Mosaism；　but　to　supersede　it。　Nor　can　any　inference　adverse　to　this　conclusion　be　drawn　from　the　injunction　to　the　disciples　（Matt。　x。　5…7）　not　to　preach　to　Gentiles　and　Samaritans；　but　only　〃to　the　lost　sheep　of　the　house　of　Israel〃；　for　this　remark　is　placed　before　the　beginning　of　Jesus'　Messianic　career；　and　the　reason　assigned　for　the　restriction　is　merely　that　the　disciples　will　not　have　time　even　to　preach　to　all　the　Jews　before　the　coming　of　the　Messiah；　whose　approach　Jesus　was　announcing　（Matt。　x。　23）

These　examples　show　that　we　must　use　caution　in　weighing　the　testimony　even　of　the　first　gospel；　and　must　not　too　hastily　cite　it　as　proof　that　Jesus　supposed　his　mission　to　be　restricted　to　the　Jews。　When　we　come　to　consider　what　happened　a　few　years　after　the　death　of　Jesus；　we　shall　be　still　less　ready　to　insist　upon　the　view　defended　by　our　anonymous　author。　Paul；　according　to　his　own　confession；　persecuted　the　Christians　unto　death。　Now　what；　in　the　theories　or　in　the　practice　of　the　Jewish　disciples　of　Jesus；　could　have　moved　Paul　to　such　fanatic　behaviour？　Certainly　not　their　spiritual　interpretation　of　Mosaism；　for　Paul　himself　belonged　to　the　liberal　school　of　Gamaliel；　to　the　views　of　which　the　teachings　and　practices　of　Peter；　James；　and　John　might　easily　be　accommodated。　Probably　not　their　belief　in　Jesus　as　the　Messiah；　for　at　the　riot　in　which　Stephen　was　murdered　and　all　the　Hellenist　disciples　driven　from　Jerusalem；　the　Jewish　disciples　were　allowed　to　remain　in　the　city　unmolested。　（See　Acts　viii。　1；　14。）　This　marked　difference　of　treatment　indicates　that　Paul　regarded　Stephen　and　his　friends　as　decidedly　more　heretical　and　obnoxious　than　Peter；　James；　and　John；　whom；　indeed；　Paul's　own　master　Gamaliel　had　recently　（Acts　v。　34）　defended　before　the　council。　And　this　inference　is　fully　confirmed　by　the　account　of　Stephen's　death；　where　his　murderers　charge　him　with　maintaining　that　Jesus　had　founded　a　new　religion　which　was　destined　entirely　to　supersede　and　replace　Judaism　（Acts　vi。　14）。　The　Petrine　disciples　never　held　this　view　of　the　mission　of　Jesus；　and　to　this　difference　it　is　undoubtedly　owing　that　Paul　and　his　companions　forbore　to　disturb　them。　It　would　thus　appear　that　even　previous　to　Paul's　conversion；　within　five　or　six　years　after　the　death　of　Jesus；　there　was　a　prominent　party　among　the　disciples　which　held　that　the　new　religion　was　not　a　modification　but　an　abrogation　of　Judaism；　and　their　name　〃Hellenists〃　sufficiently　shows　either　that　there　were　Gentiles　among　them　or　that　they　held　fellowship　with　Gentiles。　It　was　this　which　aroused　Paul　to　persecution；　and　upon　his　sudden　conversion　it　was　with　these　Hellenistic　doctrines　that　he　fraternized；　taking　little　heed　of　the　Petrine　disciples　（Galatians　i。　17）；　who　were　hardly　more　than　a　Jewish　sect。

Now　the　existence　of　these　Hellenists　at　Jerusalem　so　soon　after　the　death　of　Jesus　is　clear　proof　that　he　had　never　distinctly　and　irrevocably　pronounced　against　the　admission　of　Gentiles　to　the　Messianic　kingdom；　and　it　makes　it　very　probable　that　the　downfall　of　Mosaism　as　a　result　of　his　preaching　was　by　no　means　unpremeditated。　While；　on　the　other　hand；　the　obstinacy　of　the　Petrine　party　in　adhering　to　Jewish　customs　shows　equally　that　Jesus　could　not　have　unequivocally　committed　himself　in　favour　of　a　new　gospel　for　the　Gentiles。　Probably　Jesus　was　seldom　brought　into　direct　contact　with　others　than　Jews；　so　that　the　questions　concerning　the　admission　of　Gentile　converts　did　not　come　up　during　his　lifetime；　and　thus　the　way　was　left　open　for　the　controversy　which　soon　broke　out　between　the　Petrine　party　and　Paul。　Nevertheless；　though　Jesus　may　never　have　definitely　pronounced　upon　this　point；　it　will　hardly　be　denied　that　his　teaching；　even　as　reported　in　the　first　gospel；　is　in　its　utter　condemnation　of　formalism　far　more　closely　allied　to　the　Pauline　than　to　the　Petrine　doctrines。　In　his　hands　Mosaism　became　spiritualized　until　it　really　lost　its　identity；　and　was　transformed　into　a　code　fit　for　the　whole　Roman　world。　And　we　do　not　doubt　that　if　any　one　had　asked　Jesus　whether　circumcision　were　an　essential　prerequisite　for　admission　to　the　Messianic　kingdom；　he　would　have　given　the　same　answer　which　Paul　afterwards　gave。　We　agree　with　Zeller　and　Strauss　that；　〃as　Luther　was　a　more　liberal　spirit　than　the　Lutheran　divines　of　the　succeeding　generation；　and　Sokrates　a　more　profound　thinker　than　Xenophon　or　Antisthenes；　so　also　Jesus　must　be　credited　with　having　raised　himself　far　higher　above　the　narrow　prejudices　of　his　nation　than　those　of　his　disciples　who　could　scarcely　understand　the　spread　of　Christianity　among　the　heathen　when　it　had　become　an　accomplished　fact。〃

　　　　　　　　　　　　January；　1870。



IV。　THE　CHRIST　OF　DOGMA。＇22＇

＇22＇　Saint…Paul；　par　Ernest　Renan。　Paris；　1869。

Histoire　du　Dogme　de　la　Divinite　de　Jesus…Christ；　par　Albert　Reville。　Paris；　1869。

The　End　of　the　World　and　the　Day　of　Judgment。　Two　Discourses　by　the　Rev。　W。　R。　Alger。　Boston：　Roberts　Brothers；　1870。


The　meagreness　of