was the Christ," but, "He was called the Christ." Here we find an illustration of that arbitrary and conjectural criticism which pervades the whole of this book. Whatever does not tally with the author's views of the probable, is unceremoniously rejected. It is quite enough with him to discredit a passage, that it is not such as he would have anticipated. He seeks no other evidence for or against the truth of any statement than that it be in accordance or not with his own subjective tendencies. It never occurs to him, although all history might have taught him the fact, that the probable is not always the true. And in dealing so capriciously as he here does with the text of Josephus, he forgets that, like Pilate, who, contrary to all that would have been anticipated, had inscribed over the cross of Jesus, "This is the King of the Jews," the historian whose words he so rashly alters, might reply to such meddlers with his work, "What I have written, I have written."

The Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, among which the book of Daniel is reckoned, are declared to be possessed of great importance with respect to the "history of the development of the Messianic theories, and for understanding the conceptions of Jesus in regard to the kingdom of God." M. Renan condenses into a sentence the objections which have been urged by German writers against the authenticity of Daniel, and thinks there cannot be a doubt that that book was composed in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. We are of a totally different opinion. Much plausibility may, no doubt, be given to the arguments directed against the early date of the book, but its composition in the time of the exile is nevertheless to our mind unquestionable. We do not now enter upon the question, but would simply remark, that the proved prevalence of Greek in the time of Epiphanes as the language of popular Jewish literature, seems to us of itself to necessitate the ascription to this book of a much higher antiquity.

With respect to the Talmud, our author holds that it has hitherto been too much neglected as a means of illustrating the New Testament. For ourselves, we should express quite the opposite opinion. In our judgment, the sacred narrative has more often been obscured and perverted, than elucidated or explained, by means of the Talmudical writings. With the partial exception of the Mischna, these reflect the feelings, and exhibit the practices, of an age, long posterior to that of Christ. To carry to the study of the New Testament those views of Jewish life and character, which have been formed from that congeries of late rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud, is one of the most certain ways of misreading the gospel-history, and has, in many respects, proved a source of inveterate and mischiev

ous error.

Authorship of the Gospels.

107

But we now come to speak of what M. Renan properly regards as beyond everything else our authority in constructing a life of Jesus-the gospels themselves. He does not pretend, in this book, to deal at large with this subject. He promises to treat, in his second volume, of the composition of the gospels, as one of the most important events for the future of Christianity which took place in the second half of the first century. But he cannot, of course, avoid pronouncing his opinion on the credibility of those narratives on which he chiefly relies for the materials of his work. He does, in fact, as has been already hinted, deal succinctly, but decisively, with every important question connected with them. "At what period, by what hands, under what conditions," he asks (p. xv.), "were the gospels composed?" And as he proceeds, in his own fashion, to reply to these queries, he very truly remarks, that on the answers which are given to them, depends the opinion which we must form as to the truthfulness and authenticity of the sacred narrative.

His first observation is directed against the opinion that the titles prefixed to the several gospels imply that these were, throughout, the productions of the authors whose names they bear. "The formula," he says, "according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' according to Luke,' 'according to John,' do not imply that, in the judgment of antiquity, these writings had been written from beginning to end by Matthew, by Mark, by Luke, by John; they merely signify that these were the traditions derived from each of the writers respectively, and covering themselves by their authority." This view of the meaning of κατὰ Ματθαῖον, &c., has often been advanced by rationalist critics, but rests upon no solid foundation. The very first verses of St Luke's gospel make a distinct claim of the authorship of the book for that evangelist, yet his gospel has the same formula prefixed to it as the others. Besides, we find in some of the most ancient versions, such titles given to the gospels as can be interpreted only in the sense of their being the authentic productions of their several authors. Thus, for instance, it is with the Peschito, the most venerable of all versions. In that all but apostolic work, which reaches to a far higher antiquity than our most ancient MS. of the New Testament, the inscriptions of the several gospels are such as to preclude all ambiguity in regard to the point in question. That of the first is, "The holy gospel, the preaching of Matthew the apostle;" that of the second, "The holy gospel, the announcement of Mark the evangelist;" that of the third, "The holy gospel, the announcement of Luke the evangelist;" and that of the fourth, "The holy gospel, the preaching of John the preacher;" and as these several titles must have been prefixed

to the gospels at the time when the version was made, they clearly shew, that from the earliest times, the evangelic narratives were regarded as the true, authentic productions of the men whose names they bear. No doubt, the formula under consideration occurs at times with a different signification, as when we read of "The gospel according to the Egyptians," and "The gospel according to the Hebrews," but it would be manifestly absurd to transfer the meaning which zarà has in such cases to our canonical gospels. When we read in 2 Macc. ii. 13, of "the commentaries according to Nehemiah "”—zarà ròv Neslav no one thinks of questioning his true and entire authorship of the work referred to; and, in like manner, when we are told of the gospel "according to Matthew," &c., there is not the slightest ground for imagining that a looser meaning is to be attached to the expression, or that anything else than the strict and exclusive authorship of the apostle is intended.

Descending to particulars, M. Renan begins by pronouncing his judgment on the third gospel. He admits that its author is undoubtedly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles, and that he was a companion of St Paul. As to its date, he affirms that "it may be determined with great exactness by considerations derived from the book itself. The twenty-first chapter of Luke, which cannot be separated from the rest of the work, has certainly been written after the siege of Jerusalem, but only a little time after (see verses, 9, 20, 24, 28, 32; comp. xxii. 36)." If our readers will take the trouble of turning up the passages thus referred to, as decisive of the date of the gospel, they will find that they all contain allusions to the state of things connected with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Their accurate details of the events which then occurred, are held quite sufficient to prove that they are not prophecy but history, and that, accordingly, this part of the gospel must have been written after the catastrophe in question. This is truly an easy mode of settling the point, and will, no doubt, be appreciated by biblical scholars. But it humbly appears to us to bear somewhat hard upon the sacred writers. It seems to place them in much the same unfortunate position as that occupied of old by the victims of prevailing superstition, who, whether they survived or not the ordeal to which they were subjected, were equally sure to perish. If the writers of Scripture are thought to be incorrect in any prophetical announcements which they contain, then they are laughed to scorn as mere pretenders to the gift of prophecy, whereas, on the other hand, should they happen to be strikingly correct in their predictions, then this is held to be a proof that they wrote after the events referred to occurred, and palmed upon the world as prophecy, what was a mere historical

Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

109

account. M. Renan, no doubt, maintains that a prediction of the future is impossible, because it implies the operation of a supernatural power in which he does not believe. But he must excuse us if we object to such a flagrant "petitio principii" as that with which he is chargeable in reference to St Luke's gospel, and if we refuse to place the composition of that work after the destruction of Jerusalem, simply because, if allowed to have been written before that event, it would contradict and refute a principle of criticism which he has been pleased to adopt.

We have next his account of the origin of the existing gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, and of the degree of authority which he thinks belongs to them. In this matter he relies entirely upon some statements of Papias, which have been preserved to us by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iii. 39). And here it is curious to notice how the importance of the testimony of Papias is extolled. The Bishop of Hierapolis, after suffering somewhat severely at the hands of critics, has at last met with a chivalrous defender and eulogist. He is described by M. Renan as being, among other things, "hommegrave," and his statements are quoted as furnishing "first-rate testimony" (un témoignage capital)-language which seems somewhat at variance with that of Eusebius himself, who had read his works. throughout, and who declares him to have been "a man of very little understanding." This Papias, then, writing in the early part of the second century, says our author, "mentions two works on the deeds and words of Christ: (1.) a writing of Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, a short, incomplete writing, not arranged in chronological order, comprising some narratives and discourses (sivra galera), composed from the instructions and the remembrances of the apostle Peter; (2.) a collection of sayings (ysa) written in Hebrew by Matthew, and which every one translated as well as he could."" Building upon these statements of Papias, our author proceeds as follows, with his account of the origin and authenticity of our present gospels:

"It is certain that these two descriptions correspond sufficiently well to the general appearance of the two books now called "The Gospel according to Matthew," "The Gospel according to Mark;" the first distinguished by its long discourses, the second, anecdotical throughout, much more exact than the first with regard to minute occurrences, brief even to dryness, poor in discourses, sufficiently ill

So high does our author rate the authority of Papias, that he even expects us to admit that "the gospels had at first no commanding character, and were 'ess authoritative than tradition," simply because we learn (Euseb. iii. 89) that that early writer confessed he had a great appetite for those stories which were afloat about Christ and his apostles.-See p. 299.

composed. It is not possible to maintain that these two works, as we now have them, are absolutely similar to those which were in the hands of Papias: first, because the writing of Matthew mentioned by Papias, was composed exclusively of discourses in Hebrew, of which translations sufficiently diverse were in circulation; and secondly, because the writing of Mark and that of Matthew were to him altogether distinct, composed without any agreement, and, as it seems, in different languages. Now, in the actual state of the texts, the gospel according to Matthew, and the gospel according to Mark, present some parallel passages, so long, and so perfectly identical, that we must suppose either that the final editor of the second had the first before his eyes, or that both have copied from the same original. That which appears most probable is, that, neither with respect to Matthew nor Mark do we now possess the quite original editions; that our first two gospels are already a kind of harmonies, in which it has been attempted to fill up the gaps of one text by borrowing from another. Every one, in fact, wished to possess a complete copy. He who possessed in his exemplar only the discourses, wished to have also the narratives, and vice versâ. Thus it came to pass that the gospel according to Matthew' was at last found to have embraced almost all the anecdotes of Mark, and that the gospel according to Mark' contains, at the present day, a multitude of traits derived from the Logia of Matthew."*-P. xviii., &c.

We shall deal with the statements made in this passage immediately; but, before proceeding to do so, it will be well to add the author's summary of results in regard to the first three gospels.

"To sum up," he says, we may affirm that the gospel history represented by the synoptics (la rédaction synoptique) has passed through three stages: (1.) The state of the original documents (the λόγια of Matthew, the λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα" of Mark), first editions which exist no longer; (2.) The state of simple mixture, in which the original gospels were amalgamated, without any effort at arrangement, and without our being able to detect any personal object on the part of the authors-the actual gospels of Matthew

*It is worthy of notice, that Renan here departs from his master Strauss, as to the meaning which he assigns to the expression rà éya, employed by Papias. The author of the "Leben Jesu" remarks:-"Auf die Wortbedeutung von λóyia dringend, hat neuestens Schleiermacher hierunter nur eine Sammlung der Reden Jesu verstehen wollen; allein, wo Papias von Markus spricht, gebraucht er, wie es scheint, σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων ποιεισθαι und τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα γράφειν als Wechselbegriffe; woraus hervorgehen würde, dass auch jenes eine die Thaten und Schicksale Jesu mit umfassende Schrift bezeichnete, und die Kirchenväter Recht hätten, das Zeugniss des Papias von einer vollständigen Evangelienschrift zu verstehen."-B. i. 65. Our author has, apparently, here overlooked both his ancient and modern authority.