Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 22:86 (Apr 1865)
Article: More Recent Works On The Life Of Christ
Author: Charles Marsh Mead

BSac 22:86 (April 1865) p. 207

More Recent Works On The Life Of Christ

Charles M. Mead

The most noteworthy Lives of Jesus that have appeared during the last two or three years are those of Renan, Schenkel, and Schleiermacher, and the revised edition of Strauss’s. The first of these has been so widely circulated, and has called forth so many criticisms, that it seems almost superfluous to add anything to what others have said. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness and of convenience of comparison, it may be well to take here a cursory view of the work.

If we compare Renan with Strauss, in reference to the general impression which their works are fitted to make, the former must be pronounced the least objectionable. He aims at a more positive result. He does not manifest such an utter lack of sense for the dignity of Christianity. There are parts of the book which, by the vividness which they impart to certain scenes in the life of Christ, must be called by every one exceedingly interesting and valuable. German critics usually call Renan’s work less profound than that of Strauss; and so it is, if minuteness of discussion and criticism is made the test. But Strauss wrote for the scientific, Renan for the popular, reader. This gives Renan’s work a perspicuity and attractiveness which by no means necessarily indicate lack of learning or of care. In one respect, certainly, Renan is superior to Strauss; we mean in his acquaintance with the genius, customs, and literature of the Jews. And this acquaintance has been skilfully used. In one particular, however, we may admit the charge to be well founded. While Strauss by one fundamental assumption, that of the unreality of the supernatural, and the consequent simple humanity of Christ, jus-

BSac 22:86 (April 1865) p. 208

tified his absolute rejection of the New Testament as a source of history, ‘Renan, though starting with the same assumption, ascribes also a considerable degree of credibility to the Gospels. Consequently he is obliged to resort to numerous, and often fanciful, conjectures, in order to make the two assumptions harmonize. His logic is less rigorous than that of Strauss, because his appreciation of Christianity and his regard for historic probability are greater. In short, he has not the courage to develop a fundamental error so fearlessly to its legitimate results.

As to the four Gospels, Renan’s view is as follows: they are all, speaking in general terms, genuine and authentic; but we do not have them in their original form. For, at first the Christians had no scruples in making additions to and changes in the Gospels. “Each one wrote on the margin of his copy the sayings and parallel passages which he found elsewhere, and which pleased him.” Not till after the middle of th...