CHAPTER II.

THE CHARACTER OF THE EVANGELISTS-DISCREPANCIES AND COINCIDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.

HE unimpeachable character of the Evangelists for truthfulness, integrity, and general holiness, as required by the high standard of the Gospel itself which they preached, is attested by the fact that Christ Himself made them His intimate friends and followers, appointed some of them to the Apostleship, and intimated prophetically that they should sustain this character to the end, inasmuch as they, with the others, should become actual inhabitants of heaven, "sitting upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The fact of their undoubted holiness and uprightness of character, as thus sealed by the Son of God Himself, however, does not satisfy M. Renan; for not only has he charged the early, uninspired disciples and primitive Christians generally with a wholesale, unscrupulous tampering with the Word of God, but the Evangelists themselves are charged with a want of good faith and veracity in the accounts they have given of some of the sayings of Jesus, and of the incidents they have recorded as connected with His life. Such passages as the following, for example, may be found interspersed here and there throughout his work: "Certainly, I think, that if we except certain short and almost mnemonic axioms, none of the discourses reported by Matthew are textual." This

particular passage, however, he does not appear to give as an impeachment of Matthew's integrity; but rather, that it was the necessary result of his having, in his early day, lacked the advantages of a "stenographic reporter!" Perhaps the Supreme Author of all science and art lacked these or other necessary advantages, also-lacked, at least the ability to write in stenographic or other intelligible characters such discourses on the tablets of the Apostles' memories; or to re-write them in case time and circumstances had erased them-but perhaps not, Renan.

"It is scarcely necesssary to say," he further remarks, "that with such documents, in order to present only what is indisputable, we must limit ourselves to general features." Has M. Renan really presented "only what is indisputable?" Perhaps he thinks so!-But let us hear him out: "In almost all ancient histories, even in those which are much less legendary than these, details open up innumerable doubts. Many anecdotes were conceived to prove that in Jesus the prophecies regarded as Messianic had had their accomplishments. Several narratives, especially in Luke, are invented in order to bring out more vividly certain traits of the character of Jesus."1 How does Renan reconcile this last most unwarrantable and mischievous assumption, with a statement he has made on page 9 respecting Luke's Gospel ?—“ We are here then upon solid ground; for we are concerned with a work written entirely by the same hand, and of the most perfect unity." Very "solid ground" truly, if we have nothing better to rest upon than the fabrications and inventions of men, palmed upon us in the name of the Most High! M. Renan has not yet disposed of Luke, however. Like an instrument in full play, being set to the tune of false accusation and calumny, he is determined to 1 1 pp. 26-27.

play it out, and proceeds: "We feel that we have to do with a man who exaggerates the marvellous, and who labours at the texts (of Matthew and Mark) and wrests their sense to make them agree." He gives him credit, however, for relating "certain words of Jesus of delightful beauty," but in which, he says, "we detect the presence of legend." Credit also is given him for bringing to his Gospel “a degree of skill in composition which singularly augments the effect of the portrait, without seriously injuring its truthfulness.” Now St. Luke, if alive, would perhaps consider himself under great obligation to the kind consideration of our French philosopher in thus ascribing to him such good motives for his untruthfulness; but for our own part, we should experience a difficulty in regarding it as complimentary, even though it had proceeded from a philosopher of still higher repute.

Of the apostle John, that remarkably holy man whom Jesus specially loved, M. Renan writes, we should say, in the style of a charlatan rather than a philosopher. As to one of the leading motives which actuated that holy man in writing his gospel, he. says: "We are tempted to believe that John in his old age, having read the Gospel narratives, was hurt at seeing that there was not accorded to him a sufficiently high place in the history of Christ; that then he commenced to dictate a number of things which he knew better than the rest, with the intention of showing that in many instances, in which only Peter was spoken of, he had figured with him and even before him." 2 Renan is "tempted to believe" on more points than one; and in this instance, at least, it is not hard to discern who is his tempter. John's real object in writing his Gospel as given by himself in

chapter 20, v. 31, is shown to be threefold;

"To prove,

1. That Jesus is the promised Messiah; 2. That His person is truly Divine; and, 3. That eternal life may be obtained through faith in His Name."

narrator ? "2

In singular contrast (which is an undeviating characteristic of Renan's style of writing) with his sentiments respecting John as quoted in the preceding chapter, Renan proceeds: "When old he wrote that strange Gospel which contains such precious teachings, but in which in our opinion the character of Jesus is falsified upon many points.1 How is it that, connected with a general plan of the life of Jesus, which appears much more satisfactory and exact than that of the synoptics, these singular passages occur in which we are sensible of a dogmatic interest peculiar to the compiler, of ideas foreign to Jesus, and sometimes of indications which place us on our guard against the good faith of the Stripped of their coloured surroundings, on other pages he proceeds in the same style :-"The discourses given us by the fourth Gospel are compositions intended to cover with the authority of Jesus certain doctrines dear to the compiler. The style of the discourses attributed to Jesus by the fourth Gospel, presents the most complete analogy with that of the Epistles of St. John. We see that in writing the discourses, the author followed not his recollection, but rather the somewhat monotonous movement of his own thought." The writing of a book does not destroy men's individuality, Renan; and each evangelist therefore has a style peculiar to himself." "In attributing these new ideas to Jesus," proceeds John's detractor, "he only followed a very natural tendency. 2 Page 13. 3 Page 17. + Page 20. 5 See last paragraph on Page 12.

1

Page 130.

Considering Jesus as the incarnation of truth, John could not fail to attribute to Him that which he had come to consider as the truth." 1 Base insinuations !-What a reflection upon the character of the man who makes them!-How " very natural" the "tendency" in some to ascribe to others the depraved traits which are characteristic of themselves. What gives Renan so much uneasiness about certain parts of John's Gospel, is evidently the "strange modifications" he professes to have discovered in it; "the perpetual argumentation" of which he speaks; "these long arguments after each miracle," so uncongenial to "the man of taste"—the sentimentalist ; together with what he calls "the barrenness of metaphysics, and the darkness of abstract dogma," embracing the nature of the Godhead, the Divinity of Christ, &c. These are the peculiarities of this Gospel which give him so much uneasiness and trouble. Such "argumentation' bears heavily on the various articles of the proud man's creed, and he winces, impatiently winces under the galling pressure. "Is it indeed," he asks in amazement, "John, the Son of Zebedee, who is able to write in Greek these lessons of abstract metaphysics? For myself, I dare not be sure that the fourth Gospel has been entirely written by the pen of a Galilean fisherman." The lessons of "abstract metaphysics" John's Gospel contains, Renan thinks beyond the compass of the fisherman's abilities. It puzzles him, and well it might; but it becomes easy of comprehension to those who consider that it was not beyond the capacity of the God that inspired him. Renan forgets the classical and philosophic training John got on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently.

1 Page 18.