Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

ART. II.-GERMAN ANTI-SUPERNATURALISM. Six Lectures on Strauss's "Life of Jesus," delivered at the Chapel in South-Place, Finsbury. By PHILIP HARWOOD. London: Charles Fox, Paternoster-Row. 1841.

THE Anti-Supernaturalism of Germany is the calm, deep, dignified expression of Philosophical opinion. The men who advocate it are engaged in no contest of party strife. They are theologians it is true, but that is not their highest designation; they are among the Learned, in Germany a separate class, and the highest class. They belong there to a privileged order; among them do Princes seek their councillors of state; they become the legislators of their country; they see, in fact, all offices of influence open to them. But they perceive that the respect their name inspires, is in reality a mark of homage paid to Literature and Science, for to these alone do they owe the dignity of their proud pre-eminence. And as it is found, owing to the social nature of man, that all class feelings have a tendency to overpower individual consideration, so it becomes the case here, and rather would a German Savant part with his most ingenious theory than maintain it in disobedience to the rules of theoretic art, or at the expense of his character for scientific analysis. This feeling is no doubt fostered and strengthened by the circumstance that the great spread of University Education in Germany allows so many to partake of its advantages, that a number of trained auditors can always be appealed to, sufficient to satisfy the desires of all ordinarily ambitious men. Thus we find that in Germany the feeling of the immense importance of the decision of the learned continues throughout life, a sentiment which we should suppose few in England retain many years after their departure from our universities, when the contact with the masses, either in political, social or religious reform, soon teaches the student that the world without is very different from the world within the College walls. Besides, one of the most indisputable influences of constant contact among the educated classes, is to induce a nice sense of honour in their conventional arrangements. This feeling, as we find from the times of chivalry, may not attach itself always to the most important of their personal virtues, but it certainly does to the most distinctive features of their social intercourse. So it is with the feeling of honour among the Literati of Germany; there are no acts of vulgar controversy practised by them; there is no overbearing and browVOL. IV. No. 17.- New Series.

U

beating; there are ever fair words and open-handed courtesy ; there is honest acknowledgment made of the force of an adversary's argument; there is no attempt to distort a fact, to make it suit a theory; the data are given in their length and breadth before it is attempted to make them subservient to the Author's hypothesis. As one of their own critics has happily expressed it, on the sunny heights of Science, there is no place for strife, for each rejoices at the excellencies which characterize the works of the others, and feels that he himself derives advantage from them.

But not only is there no appeal made to vulgar passions; the unlearned are in somewhat unceremonious terms informed that there is no occasion for them to put in their judgment concerning matters which are beyond them. Take, for instance, Strauss's preface to the first edition of his Life of Jesus, where after defending his work from any really anti-christian tendency, he thus continues :—

"Notwithstanding, certain individuals may find their faith injured by inquiries of this kind of these are theologians,-they have in their science the means of cure for such wounds, which indeed it is impossible to spare them, unless they wish to stand below the development of their age. For those who are not theologians, this point of view is in fact not sufficiently prepared, and on this account the present work is so written, that at least the unlearned among them will soon and often perceive that it is not intended for them; and if from pertness, or a love of denouncing heresy, they notwithstanding choose to concern themselves with it, they will find, as Schleiermacher said on another occasion, that they will have to bear the punishment in themselves, for their own consciences will not fail to bear them witness, that they are desiring to speak about that which they do not understand.”

And again Strauss defends himself as a scientific man,—saying, that if theologians in general find his work unchristian, he finds their religious prepossessions unscientific, and that however little of the devotional, edifying, style of many modern works may be found here, yet nowhere will they find frivolity, or miss the earnestness of science. And most amply are these pledges redeemed.

We have been led to these general reflections on German Anti-supernaturalism by the perusal of the Lectures lately given to the English public under this title; for it seems to us that in a very remarkable manner the author has contrived to destroy almost all those leading features which cause the Anti-supernaturalism of Germany to present a striking contrast with the anti-supernaturalism of other countries. We acknowledge that it must ever be difficult, if not impossible, to give an adequate

idea of "immense learning, acute reasoning and logical thoroughness in the form of extract and abridgment." But we do not think that it is therefore necessary by the process of curtailing, to deprive a book of its only claim to the praise of being a scientific one, and to make it appear a dogmatical solution instead of a scientific statement of a difficult problem. The mythical theory of Strauss, as he has himself shown, did not originate with himself. The scientific worth of his work depends upon his manner of applying this theory to the explanation of the numerous difficulties which meet us in the four Gospels. In doing this, there is no attempt made to misstate the question, or to make the difficulty appear greater than it really is, in order either to prepare the way for the admission of his theory, or to make his success appear greater in disentangling the Gordian knot. We will endeavour to render our meaning clearer by examples, for we suppose that the very adoption of the Title chosen by the Author of the Lectures may be regarded as a proof that our countrymen are wishful to penetrate into the Region of German philosophy, and to know more precisely what these thinkers are meditating. We do not know any more likely manner of making the difference between the German and English Author plain, than by quoting passages from Mr. Harwood's Lecture, where the usual brief, dogmatical, authoritative style of English Rationalism is adopted, and then quoting from Strauss, whom the Author professedly epitomizes, sentiments of the same general import, but couched in the language of philosophic doubt and critical accuracy. Before passing to more important points, we will notice a verbal inaccuracy, which however materially alters the nature of the result arrived at. Strauss labours very successfully, §. 13 and 14 of his Introduction, to show the possibility of mythi in the New Testament, both from external and internal grounds; the possibility was however far too abstract a result for the Lecturer, and therefore he does not fail to clothe it with more of matter of fact tangibility, by turning it into a probability, and he attributes this somewhat unphilosophical process of prejudging the question to Dr. Strauss himself. Lecture I. p. 10.

With the Author of the Lectures, one of the most unfailing topics for declamation is the want of authenticity and genuineness in the four Gospels: almost in every Lecture we find this subject re-introduced, but nowhere do we find any very definite statement of the case: in fact, the whole subject appears to the English Lecturer too confused to admit of any clear statement whatever. Respecting the authors of the Gospels, we find, p. 57:

"We do not quite know who they are. Actually we do not know, and the learned cannot tell us. The evidence is anonymous, the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being prefixed to our records, we know not by whom or on what authority.”

Respecting their genuineness, we find, page 11, the following remark:

"We are unable to follow them with clear assurance higher up into antiquity than somewhere after the middle of the second century, while the less definite notices we possess of works partially answering to the description of these books do not commence until about the secondthird part of that century."

We shall find however a little more light thrown by the learned on this controversy, if we turn to Strauss, who after he has discussed the subject of the genuineness of John's Gospel, thus sums up the result, §. 82, p. 740:

"Herewith agrees what Bretschneider gives as his recently adopted opinion respecting the discourses in John's Gospel,-that John is less desirous to represent Jesus as speaking each time as he actually spoke, than to make him speak on each occasion in a manner suitable to the entire impression, which the personality and instruction of Jesus had left on his own mind. The points under discussion are two; first, how much of these discourses, notwithstanding, still belong to Jesus ; secondly, whether this view is consistent with the authorship of the fourth Gospel, by the Apostle John. The first of these questions I have endeavoured to answer sufficiently in the foregoing. With respect to the second, I do not trust myself to assert that the discourses in the fourth Gospel contain anything which decidedly refuses to admit of explanation, either by the individuality of John, or by the Gospel being written by him at an advanced age."

That this concession appeared to the author as a very important one, we shall find from the subjoined quotation from the preface. Surely it displays some want of philosophical accuracy in the Abridger to omit all notice of it, particularly as the third edition is the one which he had referred to at the commencement of his Lectures.

After a short but very interesting notice of the works of his different opponents, Dr. Strauss thus continues:

[ocr errors]

"The alterations in this new edition have more or less relation to the circumstance that a renewed study of the fourth Gospel in connexion with De Wette's Commentary,' and Neander's Life of Jesus,' have made me doubtful concerning my former doubts respecting the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel,-not that I am convinced of its authenticity, but also of its want of authenticity I am no longer convinced. Among the peculiarly opposing and contradictory marks of the

presence and of the absence of genuineness and of truth in this remarkable Gospel, I had, when first writing my book with a one-sided polemical ardour, chiefly attended to the neglected and unfavourable side. By degrees the other side has asserted her rights in my mind, though I am not able to sacrifice my former views entirely to these, as most of the present theologians have done, even to De Wette. Through this change my book has lost, in its present form, its unity, not only with respect to its prior form, but also in its opposition to the works of others, proceeding upon different principles. But it is to be hoped that in relation to both, it will have gained in truth."

We cannot avoid applying here to Strauss, that beautiful and truthful eulogy which he had passed upon Neander :

"But how does he put to shame, with his carefulness in holding fast the ancient, his sincerity in recognizing the doubtful, with his self denying love of the truth, the impure zeal of some others."

As an instance of the difference between speaking the whole truth, and giving a one-sided view, in the resulting impression produced on the mind of the reader, we will quote part of a passage extracted by Mr. Harwood, together with its continuation by Strauss. Page 36, we find :

"There is a singular mannerism all through this fourth Gospel. Christ is made to say the same sort of things over and over again, (even to the most different description of auditors,) and in the same sort of technical phraseology, and his auditors make the same sort of mistakes over and over again. The Samaritan Woman and the Master in Israel, the Pharisees in the temple of Jerusalem, and the populace in the synagogue of Capernaum, are all equally dull, dull after the same type and pattern of dullness."

Strauss concludes by the following remarks :—

"It cannot be denied that in many other cases, both the objections of the auditors, and the answers of Jesus, are perfectly adapted to the subject; as, for instance, the ninth and part of the eleventh chapters, the parting discourses of Jesus, and elsewhere. But at the same time we must not overlook the opposite character of many other conversations."—§. 82, p. 731.

To illustrate the difference between a logical deduction from a given hypothesis, and the broad generalization of a supposition into a matter of fact incorrectness in a statement, we shall quote from Strauss's mythical rationale of the healing of the lepers, where he says:

"If, as according to the above remarks seems without doubt, healings of this kind formed part of the Jewish idea of the messiah, the Christians who believed that in Jesus the messiah had appeared, would

« PředchozíPokračovat »