The history of the passion and resurrection of our Lord : considered in the light of modern criticism

Front matter

oo nomi

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

The history Of the Passion and resurrection Of our

Contents

Pei PASS LON. HISTORY,

INTRODUCTION, PAGE . THE TENDENCY OF CRITICISM, . ; : : , i L: 2. DoGMATIC REFLECTION, . : : : : ; : 6 3. THE TESTIMONY OF THE HisrTory, . ° P : ; 21 PART FIRST.

JESUS IN GETHSEMANE.

Part Second. The Sufferings Of Jesus

. THE ARREST OF JESUS, . ; ; é : : 79 2. THE TRIAL OF JESUS, ‘ ; ; : : ’ : 90 . THE SURRENDER OF JESUS TO THE GENTILES, . 7 ; ; 106 PART THIRD.

THE DEATH OF JESUS.

. THE CRUCIFIED CurIsr, : : ‘ ; : : 7 140 . THE Dyinc CHRIST, , ; 5 : : : : 152

. THE DEAD CHRIST, 2 é : : : : 182

Vill CONTENTS.

Ti THE “RESURRECTION HISTOR:

Introduction

1. THE INTEREST INVOLVED, to co

. THE PoINT OF DEPARTURE, . THE METHOD,

FIRST SECTION.

THE RAISING OF JESUS.

. THE AcT OF GOD, .

Tur AIM OF THE RAISING OF JESUS IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION, . THE HISTORY OF THE RAISING OF OUR LoRD,

SECOND SECTION.

THE RISING OF CHRIST FROM THE DEAD.

. THE AcT OF CHRIST, ’ . THE Atm oF CHRIST’S RISING IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION, . THE HISTORY OF THE RISING, |

THIRD SECTION.

THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE RISEN ONE.

. THE REALITY OF ouUR LorpD’s APPEARANCES, 5 . THE OBJECT OF THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE LIVING ONE IN THE PLAN

OF SALVATION,

. THE GosPpEL NARRATIVES,

The Lord’s Appearance to Mary iupaniene

The Travellers to Emmaus,

The Christophany on Easter Evening,

The History of Thomas,

The Manifestation by the Lake,

The Lord’s Appearing on the Day of His Ascension,

PAGE

213 219 228

281 294

327 340 342

346 352 358 364 376

, DRrABBARA & 2

Author's Preface To English

Pris

TY 6 Mea, RANSLATION:

a es

INCE the first edition of the présent. work appeared in

| Germany, the author against whose destructive tendencies

it was primarily directed has been removed from this life. A few years ago, David Strauss closed his earthly career. The seed which he scattered by a long, restless, and uninterrupted activity, extending over a generation, has not been prevented by his death from developing and flourishing. It is true this thinker, having never filled an official position, neither founded a school, nor was able to collect and form a circle of disciples, properly so called; but as the widespread impression which he produced on the educated classes still continues, so the impulse which he gave to theological research remains as a fermenting leaven, and, going even beyond the master, threatens to complete the process of dissolution. Strauss had made the facts of the life of Jesus Christ the object of his attack; it is only a necessary consequence if those who follow in his steps call in question also more remote » facts. “ Whosoever hath not the Son, the same hath not the Father who hath sent Him;” if the second article is overturned, the first is deprived of its basis. The Old Testament also is turned into a conglomerate of myths, and the living God, the almighty Creator of heaven and earth, loses His right to existence. No doubt the admiring approval which Strauss long enjoyed from ecclesiastical and theological liberalism was sensibly abated toward the end of his life. This was the consequence of the last work of his hand, with which he closed his literary activity: The Old and the New Faith: a Confession. Such was the title with which it appeared in the year 1872. In and of themselves, x THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE.

the views and positions of this book did not offend the majority of his followers. At bottom, indeed, they were quite at one with them ; but the openness with which the confession was uttered was vexatious—it did not suit them. Liberalism in Germany chiefly, and in the present day in particular, with all its hatred to hierarchism and orthodoxy, would fain have the appearance of knowing how to honour religion, and to value religiousness. And so it declined to identify itself with a man who in so undiseuised and pronounced a way did homage to religious Nihilism. Strauss ceased to be the hero of the day; already dying, he was killed with silence. The reproach raised against him redounds, in our opinion, rather to his honour. This is the merit which he has won in connection with the church of Christ, and for which he has a right to the thanks of the church, that he made an end of all half-way positions, and gave all concealment the coup-de-grdce ; that he showed by word and work the goal which every one who follows in his steps reaches, and must inevitably reach. Without hesitation and without compunction, without phrasing and without scruple, without moving a muscle of his face, he draws the last consequence clearly and surely; he cannot do otherwise, and he will not. It is well to have such an antagonist; it rewards the labour to take the lists against him—there is a prospect of some good result.

We do not think that Strauss meets with a right estimate when he is primarily regarded as a critic. No doubt he passes, not only in Germany, but wherever his name and works have spread, as the most distinguished, acute, and thoroughgoing critic that has ever arisen within the Christian church, And this description he has well deserved. For at every point he meets the narratives of Holy Scripture with the most determined distrust, and is at pains to sow the seeds of this distrust in the hearts of his readers. Nothing is so well attested that it escapes his critical knife; nothing is so firmly established that he has not - overwhelming grounds to advance against it. But the question is as to the motive of these critical operations. The case does not

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xl stand thus: that immediately and in the first place a historical doubt arose in him in respect to the biblical narratives, and that only after he had become convinced of the untrustworthiness of the narratives, he had drawn his consequence from the failing basis. On the contrary, he started from a philosophical presupposition. For him it was a confirmed truth from the outset; and to procure its prevalence and acknowledgment was the origin of his tendency. But he came on a powerful hindrance. So long as the facts related in Scripture held their stand unshaken, so long every effort was vain. The task, accordingly, was to get these obstructive elements out of the way. For this end he called in the powerful services of criticism. Criticism was not an end with him, but a means to the end, a means, no doubt, which seemed indispensable and unavoidable.

This state of the case points out the line to be followed in contending against the adversary. It would be to little purpose if one should be content to meet the objections of criticism with remarks exposing their weakness. This course has been repeatedly tried, but wholly without success. The adversary did not yield to such weapons, for they did not hit; they did not reach him; they delivered their strokes into the air. But even the observant onlooker did not follow such a fight with the interest which expects a decisive issue. In the present work, accordingly, another method is followed. We have nowhere, indeed, neglected, and that by historical arguments, to establish the reality of the facts related; only our attention has never been limited to this point. But as Strauss advanced from a presupposition to the critical process, so .we, too, have approached the biblical narratives from a presupposition —that, namely, of a faith that has subsisted for thousands of years; and the investigation has put the reader in a position to judge which presupposition proves itself true on the narratives of Scripture, and puts it in the light of a self-evidencing certainty, whether that of Strauss, or not rather, on the other hand, that which the church, from the beginning downwards, has proclaimed as her confession.

Xi THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE.

We have no doubt that the measure of interest this work has excited in Germany is due to our following this method. And so the publisher has been induced to spread it also on the other side of the Channel. No doubt ecclesiastical and religious liberalism is far from having the importance and power in England which it has attained in Germany. It is very certain that the attitude of the English nation to Christianity and to the facts of divine revelation has also had its times of trial, not only during the period of deism, but also in later times. It has, however, stood the proof, and, taken on the whole, the country is still at the present day not disposed to deny the true foundations on which the welfare of nations rests. Meanwhile, it is not impossible that there, too, many individual minds, affected by the dash of waves from a distance, are led astray as to that which alone can give support, comfort, and confidence to man. Unhappily there is only too much zeal shown in securing that the products of unbelief may scatter their seeds in all lands. Hence it appears opportune, or rather it seems a bounden duty, that there, too, voices from Germany should find a hearing which uphold the reality of the facts of Christian revelation, and which lead the proof that these facts stand the severity of scientific criticism, and go forth proved and attested from its fires. With this view the present work is offered to that circle of English readers for which it is adapted. And may God’s blessing attend it!

Woda Apo LON. HISTORY.

INTRODUCTION. 1. THE TENDENCY OF CRITICISM.

HEN Sebastian Schmidt, the Strasburg theologian, opened

his treatise, De Passtone Christi Satisfactoria, by expressing

his sorrow that, while the doctrine of the atoning sufferings and death oi Jesus Christ had the strongest claim to be acknowledged and embraced, it was yet impugned in so many ways, he had no presentiment that the future assailants of this citadel of the Christian faith would be totally different from those with whom he had to contend in his day. “I would,” he says, “ that disputation concerning so grave a doctrine of the faith were unnecessary. For it were better that the weightiest article of the faith should be simply believed than that doubts and questions should be raised regarding it. But alas that matters have gone so far that the satisfaction made by the Passion and death of Christ is made a subject of controversy, audaciously denied, and attacked in every possible way by bold and perverse minds.” And yet he had only to complain of representations which distorted and weakened a doctrine which modern criticism is attempting to destroy, root and branch. When Strauss raises the question of getting rid of the existing office of the Christian ministry, and thus of delivering the German people from an oppressive yoke of beliefs, he gives it as his opinion, that this result is to be accomplished by uprooting from the human mind all belief in the miraculous. “He who would banish priests from the church, must first banish miracles from religion.” Now this of itself would not secure the object aimed at. The man whom he repeatedly calls his forerunner and leader likewise rejected the idea of the miraculous. Yet Schleiermacher not only discharged the duties of the pastoral office with zeal and

A cheerfulness, but also gave fruitful hints as to the method of doing so. The undeniable fact that he contributed materially to the revival of the religious life of his time, shows how little he widened the gap which existed between his contemporaries and Christianity, notwithstanding this defect in his creed. Even were criticism successful in casting serious suspicion on the reality of the miraculous, it would still be far from the attainment of its object. The presupposition on which the ministry of the New Testament rests is an entirely different one, and the charm which Christianity exercises on the human heart springs from something else. The Apostle Paul characterizes the office which Christianity is called to exercise in the world as the “ministry of reconciliation.” He indicates thereby, not a particular side of its function, but its sum and substance. Its whole work is comprehended in the words: “ We are ambassadors for Christ—be ye reconciled to God.” When the same apostle says (1 Cor. xv. 14): “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain,’ he does not mean that preaching would in that case be deprived of its proper subject, but only that it would lose its divine warrant, and that the paptupta which was destitute of this warrant could afford a foundation for no more than a vain faith. Its proper swbjectmatter is not really touched thereby. The apostle defined its subject-matter for all times when he said: “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. i. 23); “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. ii. 2).

But what is the relation between the two statements which are combined in that great utterance: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation”? It is obvious that the one follows from the other. The latter becomes illusory as soon as there is any hesitation in regard to the former. When preaching can no longer speak of the sacrificial death of Christ, it becomes not merely vain,—it becomes altogether null and void; and the office which is concerned with this as its central theme loses not only its raison d’étre, but all and every possibility of continuing in operation, There is one feeling, and only one, in the human heart to which the preaching of Christ may appeal with the assurance that its voice will find a response. The morality of Christianity may excite profound admiration, the light which Christianity casts on unsolved problems may awaken a sincere interest in it, but that erduring bond which binds the heart of man to the gospel of Christ is connected with neither of these feelings. It is by means of the oppressive consciousness of sin that the Father draws heavy-laden souls to His Son. “The greatest evil is guilt.” Notwithstanding the warning of Strauss, we quote this common saying, for we have to do not with the “flowers of modern poetry,” but with the testimoniwm animae naturalier Christianae. No doubt even the consciousness of sin will not prevent the preaching of the Cross becoming foolishness to one person, a stumbling-block to another, and to many a savour of death unto death.

Those who prefer to remove the burden which they feel by some atonement of their own making, or who resign themselves to bear it with indolent murmuring, pass over very easily to a position of pronounced hostility to the eracious symbol which brings persecution on those who adhere to it (Gal. vi. 12). But up to this hour there have not been wanting those who, under a consciousness of the needs of their conscience, have recognised and embraced the gift of God, and in the possession of it have found their rest. Zhey became the reward of the Son; they were the field white unto the harvest. And as long as criticism does not succeed in undermining the authority of the message concerning the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so long shall the ministry of reconciliation and the community of the faithful endure. Strauss, therefore, has in point of fact undertaken to uproot a doctrine which has been the comfort of pious hearts for thousands of years. It required no consideration on the part of the critical author of The Life of Jesus to see what course was the proper one for him to adopt for this purpose. It was not incumbent on him to controvert the dogma directly, nor yet to deal with the apostle who is its especial expounder ;—he might have been content, therefore, without joining in the charge which Festus makes against this witness to the truth (Leben Jesu, p. 277). But it was necessary for him to consider how the inconvenient and disagreeable doctrine could be deprived of its historical basis. No doubt the historical fact of the crucifixion of Jesus was beyond dispute. But perhaps it was practicable to rest with admitting that simple fact, and to set aside, as myths and fables, all those details of the gospel narrative which pointed to dogmatic conclusions. And this attempt has actually been made by criticism. |

We have every reason to wonder at the courage which ventures to enter upon this path, and to’ pursue it towards its goal. Even if we lay aside all religious presuppositions, and assume the attitude of mere historians, we are not in a condition to prophesy for the undertaking a successful issue, and can at the best predict for it such success as was achieved by the man who began to build a tower without counting the cost, and was unable to finish it, and so made himself the mockery of the people. The means which criticism has employed, with more or less apparent success, in regard to other parts of the life of Jesus, are altogether unavailable in regard to the Passion history. Here the harmonistic difficulties are so unimportant that no serious objections can be founded on them, for in all essential points the four Evangelical narratives agree with each other. No doubt it is asserted that there are psychological impossibilities here and there; but deeper experience of itself explains some of them, and others are found in passages where the psychological mode of view is altogether inappropriate. Inconsistencies with assured historical facts, like those which may seem to exist in the narratives connected with the childhood of Jesus, cannot be pointed out by the most deeplyread historian in the region of the Passion history. With what weapons, then, does Strauss propose to carry on his conflict? Any one who expected him to introduce new arguments which were previously unheard of finds his expectation disappointed.

Indica- — tions are not wanting that Strauss himself felt that he had undertaken to cleave a rock with a frail staff. The peculiarly rough style in which he treats this particular part of his subject, his use of analogies which are calculated to wound very deeply the religious sensibilities, and his habit of drawing parallels from the region of profane history,—all these things are intended to throw discredit on a cause which he was unable to assail on solid grounds. The task of the apologist would therefore seem to be a light one. And it would be light, if nothing more were necessary than to invalidate assertions, to expose fallacies, and, in short, to pull to pieces the separate arguments of criticism one after another. But that is not the task which we set before ourselves. Such a proceeding seems to us to be equally unjust and unprofitable. We call it wnjwst. When we look into the grounds on which Strauss rests his opposition to particular portions of the Passion history,—the conflict in the garden, the last seven sayings of our Lord, or the representation of the character of Pilate which is given by the fourth Gospel,—we cannot but ask with surprise, how it was possible that difficulties of such a character should have been able to excite in the mind of a clear thinker any doubt of the credibility of these narratives? In the course of our investigations we shall come upon passages where mere astonishment will be changed into the warmer feeling of indignation. But, nevertheless, Strauss is not so far wrong when he turns sharply against those who isolate his objections from their place and connection in his system in order to pillory them individually.

These objections are nowhere expressed as his real and ultimate motive for setting aside the Evangelical narratives. They are stated in the interest of a principle, and in such a way that they are not made to establish and justify, but merely to recommend and confirm it. And it cannot be denied that, so regarded, they acquire a more imposing appearance and a greater importance than they would be entitled to if considered separately and by themselves. Criticism does not turn to its readers asking whether the arguments which it has adduced do not shatter their faith in the facts which are narrated, but whether the narratives in question do not appear in the most satisfactory light—are not intelligible down to the smallest detail—when the assumption is made that they are myths which were the offspring of interested feeling, and which were invented with the view of supplying a historical foundation for the doctrine of the atoning death of Jesus. No doubt it is incumbent on the apologist to refute the individual arguments of Strauss, but real justice will be done to his demands only when the question which he puts is met by a corresponding counter-question, viz.: Whether the mind which reflects on our narratives will really rest satisfied when it adopts the assumptions of criticism, or whether this will not rather be the case only when it adopts the view that the recorded facts actually occurred, and gave rise to the doctrine of the sacrificial death of our Lord? Unless this question is not only considered, —whether by an appeal to the conscience or to the historical sense,—but at the same time decided to some extent, criticism will be deprived of the right to exhibit the disparaging spirit which is peculiar to it, and will have no ground for complaining that it is the object of unjust depreciation at the hands of its opponents. But in proposing to carry out our task from this point of view, we are not exclusively influenced by a wish to satisfy the just demands of criticism. The course which we have indicated seems to us to be the only fruitful one, and fruitful in a sense which is not immediately apparent. In no conflict is the gain a material one if we succeed merely in maintaining our ground and repelling the assaults of our adversary. We prove ourselves victorious only by moving onwards; and a defence of the Passion history may be made a basis from which to press on so as to secure a further success.

2. DOGMATIC REFLECTION.

The doctrine of the atoning sufferings and death of Jesus is one of those which have as yet been imperfectly opened up to the theological understanding. The church has no doubt always acknowledged what Dorner says (Ueber die Rechtfertigung, p. 9): “that Christ placed Himself under the curse which rested upon us; that as our Substitute in intention and act He took upon Himself our sins and covered our unrighteousness with His righteousness; that He purchased us in His offering up of | Himself and suffering vicariously through His high - priestly and God - satisfying love, so that atonement has now been made.”

It is only necessary to glance at the liturgical formularies of | the church to see how deep and firm this conviction has been in all ages. And it rests upon a thoroughly sure foundation. It can appeal to apostolical preaching in its defence. Its right to make this appeal is acknowledged by every unprejudiced interpreter of Scripture, and no exegesis except that which has a Socinian tendency can call it in question. We note an admission made by a modern theologian in a work bearing upon this subject. Dr. Holsten (see the treatise zwm Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, p. 136) does not conceal, but states in the frankest terms, that he has wholly broken with the traditional and apostolic view. But at the same time he unhesitatingly admits that Paul regarded the death of Jesus as a sin-offering for the sins of men, as a sacrifice presented with the view of securing for them righteousness and life. But because the apostles invariably state this doctrine only in an assertive way, without disclosing its deeper grounds, it has come to pass that dogmatic history can show no palpable advance in the understanding of it. Theological thought turned its attention to the subject only at a comparatively late period. There was no definite occasion for its doing so earlier. And besides, it belonged to the proper order of things that an agreement should be arrived at uvon the question of our Lord’s person, before the work which He accomplished as Redeemer was made the subject of consideration.

The investigation of this topic was therefore carried on all the more strenuously after it had once been entered upon. It was pursued with everdeepening interest, and gave rise to the most violent controversies, which slackened only for short intervals, and which even at the present hour, when opinion still stands confronting opinion, are not finally adjusted. The history of these proceedings has been written by Ritschl* in a work of pre-eminent ability. By the comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and completeness of his review the author has done a service even to those who do not wholly agree with his conclusions, and who are not quite able to acquit him of the charge of partiality. Even the first beginnings of the theological investigation of this subject in the twelfth century were marked by the same contrast which appears, although with many modifications, in its subsequent history. Anselm invariably laid the emphasis upon the effect which the work of Christ produced upon God. According to him, the voluntary suffering and death of the God-man, possessing a valor infinitus owing to the dignity of His person, satisfied the justice of God, which was offended by the sin of the world, and placed God in a position to forgive the sins of those who accepted offered grace and to open for them the gate of salvation. This is the theory of satisfaction. Abelard, on the other hand, laid exclusive emphasis upon the effect which the Son of God was called to produce woon men. According to him, Jesus appeared in order to exhibit to them the love of God; His death was the highest manifestation of this divine love, awakens in them a corresponding love, and thus reconciles them to God, and sets them free from the slavery of sin.” These two theories were

1 Die Christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Verséhnung, 3 vols., Bonn 1870-74. The first volume, which has been translated into English and published by Edmonston & Douglas, Edinburgh 1872, is occupied with the history of the doctrine.

2 Abelard undoubtedly speaks of a certain effect which the Redeemer produced upon God also. He refers to the intercessions which Christ presents to God in propounded almost contemporaneously, and were both in a like degree the openers up of new paths. The question,—Which of them adhered most closely to the view which had previously obtained in the church, though in a somewhat latent and tacit way, is as easily answered as the further question,—For which of these views have later doctrinal developments shown preponderating sympathy? A retrospective glance will undoubtedly fail to discover anywhere in the past a doctrinal representation similar to that of Anselm; but the fundamental idea which he laid hold of and developed is by no means foreign to patristic literature. Even the church Fathers know of a ransom price for the guilty world, which was paid by means of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. And although they have for the most part represented this Avtpov as due to Satan, still the general idea that a satisfaction was rendered remains all the more intact, since there were some even then who regarded the divine hand as the Receiver of the ransom price.” But it is also undoubted that a prospective glance will scarcely find anywhere a bare reproduction of the idea of Anselm. It was always felt to be necessary to explain, to modify, or to supplement it. But, nevertheless, theology in its further development moved always in the direction which Anselm had indicated, while the path on which Abelard led the way was pursued only by such sects as the Socinians, and, among the IJlluminationists, by Tollner and Tieftrunk. Ritschl seems therefore to have entered upon a bold undertaking —an undertaking which ignores the indications of history, and has no prospect of success—when he states it as one of the objects of his work to deprive the doctrine of Anselm of a continuance of support, to destroy the partiality felt for it by that modern pietistic theology which is reacting against rationalism, and to procure for the view of Abelard the respect to which it is entitled (see I. p. 24).

behalf of men. He may have been influenced by plain Bible facts, and also by a feeling of incongruity between his theory and Scripture. It is questionable whether this addition to his representation does not tend to confusion rather than fill up the gap which is evident in it.

‘To these belong not only Gregory Nazianzen, and afterwards John of Damascus, but others beside. Ambrose certainly emphasizes in the strongest way the reference to Satan, and employs the analogy of a usurer ; yet this does not prevent him also acknowledging that satisfaction was given to the divine justice by the death of Christ,

INTRODUCTION. ra:

No one will propose to stand up for the doctrinal system of Anselm in every respect. The opinion of Ebrard (Kirchengesch. II. p. 214), that the whole outcome of scholastic thought may be found in it, is as inaccurate as the absolute contentment with which others adhere to it is unjustifiable. It has its weaknesses and defects, and is far from exhibiting the whole doctrine of the Scripture. But, on the one hand, it is to be observed that the later forms of representation, adopted by evangelical writers who moved in other respects wholly in Anselm’s direction, have in great measure removed these weaknesses and defects ; and, on the other hand, it is doubtful if the objection which is usually raised against Anselm’s fundamental thought is as well grounded as is commonly supposed. Ritschl, in harmony with the views of many others, specially charges Anselm with attempting to solve the problem by means of conceptions which belong to the sphere of law, and especially to that of private right. He says that Abelard is here very much in advance of him, inasmuch as he developes the idea of reconciliation with reference to the moral disposition of the parties towards each other, and that Luther far surpassed all previous theologians, Melanchthon in particular, in placing emphasis on love as summing up in itself the whole of the Christian idea of God. And he attributes to the theologians of the Illumination the great merit of giving due weight to the idea of “fatherly kindness” as belonging to the representation of God which is conformable to nature." The charge made against Anselm, however, reaches beyond himself. It also touches the great Teacher who spoke the parable of the wicked servant, and who expressed Himself, in the house of Simon the Pharisee, in those words which are so familiar to all.