SECTION VI

antagonistic criticism, in its intermixture of contradictory assumptions, and opposite modes of treatment

When the Gospels are viewed from the above described pre-christian and inter-christian stand-points, it will unquestionably be only a natural exercise of the mental powers to test and oppose them. And the more openly the general antagonistic principle has been expressed, the more fair and honest will the attack appear.

Nor can the right, and even the duty, of every man to test the Gospel records, according to his power and calling, from a Christian point of view, by bending them to conform to certain axioms as to form and matter, and judging them accordingly, be questioned. With respect to their form, inquiry must be made how far they are self-consistent, in accordance with each other, and with the known character of the times to which they refer. Whatever discrepancies appear, will be taken into account; for while their credibility, in the essential matter, would be weakened by essential discrepancies, it can only be strengthened by non-essential ones. The essential matter may be defined as the narration by each Evangelist according to his idiosyncrasy, of the Gospel only, that is, the history of Jesus in its religious significance and effects. The requirements of the axioms of Christian criticism as to matter will be that the Gospel narratives should be homogeneous with the essential definitions of the Christian view of the universe. The general Church view of the God-man, of His life, ministry, death upon the cross, resurrrection, and ascension, must form the principles, according to which the matter of the Gospels will be tested. These axioms instantly bring to light, e.g., the difference between the canonical and apocryphal Gospels;¹ and where they lead to the discovery of weaknesses, failings, and blemishes in evangelical narratives, their decision must be followed, regardless of consequences.

Criticism is fully justified in taking either of these opposite points of view: the antagonistic, or that arising from the Christian view of the world. But matters are changed when they are deceptively and obscurely intermingled. When criticism calls the annihilation of Christian theology, Christian theology; and, while professing to proceed only according to the principles of formal criticism, will, in the midst of the argument, admit of none but those antichristian axioms from which it originates, thus rushing with pitiable duplicity from pretended advocacy into decided antagonism, it has even more reason than Wallenstein to exclaim, ‘The ambiguity of my life accuses me.’ A procedure might indeed be imagined, which should exhibit a combination of the two points of view, without falling under this reproof: An individual might write a criticism of the Gospels from some one or other religious feeling of his own, in which, from the very first, he would have regard only to the relation in which the consequences of the Gospel history would stand to the dicta of this feeling. In this manner, every one who approaches the Gospel history, enters into a process of exercising his criticism upon it, and in his turn experiencing its criticism of himself. The philosopher may, if he will, criticise the Gospel in detail, according to his professed system. He is not expected to judge it by any other than his own. But it will better become him to betake himself to principles, than first to lose himself in the discussion of particulars. A criticism of the Gospels, however, professing to be theological, or, in other words, to be mere criticism, naturally leads us to presume that it will judge of the Gospels according to their own premiss, viz., the truth of Christianity. Upon this ground only has it a right to enter into matters of detail; such, e.g., as the religious consciousness of Jesus at His twelfth year, the spirit of His farewell discourse, &c. But if it seeks, from the first, to demolish this premiss, attacking it in its details on every opportunity,—if, from the first, it suffers non-Christian axioms to regulate its proceedings,—it forfeits all claim to indulgence in particulars, and all pretence of judging and testing the Gospels in that Christian spirit which, as such, should judge and test all things. When once the antagonistic relation is admitted, this complication disappears. The discussion is then carried on in the sphere of religious philosophy, and outside the gates of the sanctuary. Internal questions, such as the connection of the Gospels, which only the Christian spirit can solve, and which must remain hidden from non-Christian views, are no longer discussed. It will then be regarded as even unscientific to enter into particulars with adversaries who contest principles. Modern antagonistic treatment of the life of Jesus should have been answered by dogmatism. If a lawyer had been commissioned to reply to the sophistical analysis of the details of the Gospels, how easily might a lawyer-like reply have been found to these lawyer-like attacks! Nay, perhaps, a master of his art might, in conducting the cause of the Evangelists, have succeeded in exhibiting, in the style of their adversaries, a connected protocol out of all their several accounts. This much is, however, plainly manifest from the above described intermixture of critical starting points, that theological criticism, as such, is still in its infancy, and that the first step to be taken, should be an attempt to develop the principles of criticism itself, to bring the instrument into conformity with its ideal, that it may not be employed as a mongrel kind of proceeding, between judicial execution and private assassination, in an uncertain and destructive manner, producing nothing but the most perplexing illusions.

───♦───

Notes

The two well-known titles—The Life of Jesus critically treated—and Christian Doctrine exhibited in its historical development, and in its opposition to modern science—have often been mentioned as characteristic indications of such an intermixture of opposite critical points of view. The compositor would have more accurately exhibited the peculiar relation between what is acknowledged and what is denied in these titles, if his italics had distributed the emphasis thus: The Life of Jesus, critically treated—Christian Doctrine, &c., in its opposition to modern science. The title, ‘The Lord’ seems strangely introduced in the critical works of Bauer, in the midst of an attempt to consign to destruction the glory of His works. In the third volume, indeed, it gradually disappears, and the name Jesus takes its place.

1) Compare Tholuck, die Glaubwürdigkeit, p. 106 ; Ullmann, Historisch oder Mythisch, p. 181.