《基督教会史》第二章：耶稣基督

Translated from Philip Schaff’s History of The Christian Church

第二章. 耶稣基督.

目录

§ 14. 资料来源与参考文献

§ 15. 基督教的创始人

§ 16. 基督生平年表

§ 17. 土地与人民

§ 18. 伪经传统

§ 19. 基督的复活

§ 14. 资料来源与参考文献

A. 资料来源

基督本人没有留下任何著作，却为无数感恩赞美的书籍和诗歌提供了无穷的素材。被救赎的活生生的教会就是他的书。他建立的是一个活泼精神的宗教，而非像摩西律法那样的成文法典。（他在优西比乌《教会史》卷一第13章中致埃德萨国王阿布加鲁的信，是一篇毫无价值的伪作。）然而，他的言行被有史以来最诚实可靠的见证人记录了下来。

I. 可靠的基督教资料来源

  1. 四福音书正典。无论其起源和成书日期如何，它们都展现了基督那神人二性、基本相同的生命与品格，这与伪经福音书中虚构的基督形象形成鲜明对比，绝不可能是杜撰的，更不用说是出自不识字的加利利人之手。若没有他们主的启示，他们绝不会想到要去写书。
  2. 路加的《使徒行传》、使徒书信以及约翰的《启示录》。这些书卷独立于成文的福音书，却都预设了福音历史的主要事实，尤其是十字架受难和复活，并充满了对这些事实的引述。即使是最极端的自由派批评家（鲍尔和杜宾根学派）也承认保罗书信中的四封（《罗马书》、《哥林多前书》、《哥林多后书》、《加拉太书》）是真实的，单从这几封信中就可以重构出基督生平的大部分内容。（参见凯姆（Keim）在其著作 Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., I. 35 sqq. 中的承认。）

II. 伪经福音书：

伪经福音书数量众多（约50部），有些仅存其名，有些则以残片形式存在，其年代可追溯至公元二世纪及以后。它们部分是对真实历史的异端（诺斯底派和以便尼派）歪曲或删改，部分是出于想象的无害创作，或是旨在串联基督生平中不连贯时期的宗教小说，以满足人们对他亲属、童年、最后时日的好奇心，并促进对圣母马利亚的颂扬。它们可分为四类：(1) 异端福音书（如《克林妥福音》、《马吉安福音》、《加略人犹大福音》、《希伯来福音》等）；(2) 约瑟与马利亚及基督诞生的福音书（《雅各原始福音》、《伪马太福音或圣母马利亚诞生与救主童年之书》、《马利亚诞生福音》、《木匠约瑟史》等）；(3) 耶稣童年时期的福音书，从逃往埃及到他八岁或十二岁（《多马福音》，源自诺斯底派，《阿拉伯文耶稣童年福音》等）；(4) 关于受难和在阴间神秘三日的福音书（《尼哥底母福音》，包括《彼拉多行传》或《彼拉多行实》和《下到阴间》，《彼拉多书信》即一份关于基督受难给提庇留皇帝的报告，《彼拉多之死》，《希律致彼拉多及彼拉多致希律书信》，《提庇留对彼拉多的回应》，《亚利马太的约瑟夫记述》等）。彼拉多很可能曾向他在罗马的主人发送了一份关于耶稣审判和钉十字架的报告（正如查斯丁·马特和德尔图良所确信的那样），但各种以他名义流传的文件显然都是伪造的，包括最近由乔治·斯鲁特（Geo. Sluter）出版的《彼拉多行传》（The Acta Pilati, Shelbyville, Ind. 1879），他声称是从梵蒂冈图书馆中所谓的拉丁文真本翻译而来。

这些伪经作品没有历史价值，但具有相当大的护教价值；因为它们与正典福音书的对比，为福音书作者的历史真实性提供了强有力的反面证据，就像影子预示着光，伪币预示着真币，漫画预示着原型一样。它们对中世纪艺术（例如，耶稣诞生故事中的牛和驴）以及希腊和罗马教会传统中的马利亚学和马利亚崇拜产生了巨大影响，并为穆罕默德提供了他关于耶稣和马利亚的有限知识。

参见法布里修斯（Fabricius）的伪经福音书集（Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Hamburg, 1703, 2d ed. 1719），蒂洛（Thilo）的（Cod. Apocr. N. Ti., Lips. 1832），蒂申多夫（Tischendorf）的（Evangelia Apocrypha, Lips. 1853），W. 赖特（W. Wright）的（Contributions to the Apocr. Lit. of the N. T. from Syrian MSS. in the British Museum, Lond. 1865），B. 哈里斯·考珀（B. Harris Cowper）的（The Apocryphal Gospels, translated, London, 1867），以及亚历克斯·沃克（Alex. Walker）的（英文翻译收录于 Roberts & Donaldson 的 “Ante-Nicene Library,” vol. xvi., Edinb. 1870; Am. ed., vol. viii., N. Y. 1886）。

比较蒂申多夫的论文：De Evang. aproc. origine et usu (Hagae, 1851)，和 Pilati circa Christum judicio quid lucis offeratur ex Actis Pilati (Lips. 1855)。鲁道夫·霍夫曼（Rud. Hofmann）：Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen (Leipz. 1851)，以及他在 Herzog & Plitt 的 “R. Encykl.” 中关于新约伪经的文章，vol. i. (1877), p. 511。G. 布鲁内（G. Brunet）：Les évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1863。米歇尔·尼古拉（Michel Nicolas）：Études sur les évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1866。李普修斯（Lipsius）：Die Pilatus-Acten, Kiel, 1871; Die edessenische Abgar-Sage, 1880; Gospels, Apocr., in Smith & Wace, I. 700 sqq.; 霍尔茨曼（Holtzmann） Einl. in’s N. T., pp. 534–’54。

III. 犹太资料来源

旧约圣经，在预表和预言上，是基督的预备史，只有在他身上才能完全被理解，因他来是“要成全律法和先知”。

伪经和后基督教时期的犹太文献为我们提供了基督生活所处的社会和宗教外部框架的全貌，从而说明并证实了福音书的记载。

IV. 犹太历史学家约瑟夫

犹太历史学家约瑟夫（卒于公元103年后）的著名见证值得特别关注。在他的《犹太古史》第18卷第3章第3节中，他对耶稣的生平作了如下惊人的总结：

“约在此时，出现了一位名叫耶稣的智者，如果称他为人是合法的话；因为他行了许多奇妙的事（παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής），是那些乐于接受真理之人的导师。他吸引了许多犹太人，也有许多希腊人。他就是基督（ὁ Χριστός οὗτος ἦν）。在我们当中首领的建议下，彼拉多判他钉十字架后，他最初的追随者并未离弃他。因为他在第三天又活生生地向他们显现（ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν）；神圣的先知们曾预言了这些以及关于他的上万件其他奇妙之事（ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια）。而以他命名的基督徒一族，至今仍未灭绝。”

这段见证最早由优西比乌两次引用，且毫无疑虑（《教会史》I. II；及《福音的证明》III. 5），直到16世纪一直被认为是真实的，但此后一直存在争议。我们在文中加入了最具争议的希腊文词语。

支持其真实性的论据如下：

(1) 这段见证存在于约瑟夫的所有手稿中。
但这些手稿是由基督徒抄写的，我们没有比11世纪更早的手稿。

(2) 它与约瑟夫的写作风格一致。

(3) 约瑟夫在撰写一部下至公元66年的犹太历史时，竟然忽略了耶稣，这是极不可能的；更何况他曾正面提及施洗约翰（《古史》XVIII. 5, 2），以及“被称为基督的耶稣的兄弟”雅各的殉道（《古史》XX 9, 1: τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ). 这两段记载通常被认为是真实的，除非 τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ 这几个字是后人插入的。
对此可以反驳说，约瑟夫可能有出于谨慎的理由而完全忽略基督教。

反对其真实性的论据：

(1) 这段文字打断了上下文的连贯性。
但这不一定。约瑟夫刚记载了一场因骚乱而降临在犹太人身上的灾难，他可能将耶稣被钉十字架视为另一场灾难。接着他继续在第4和第5节记载另一场灾难，即提庇留统治下犹太人被驱逐出罗马。

(2) 它暴露了基督徒的口吻，并且与约瑟夫作为法利赛派犹太祭司的身份完全不符。我们更期望他会将耶稣描绘成一个骗子或狂热分子。
但另一方面可以辩称，约瑟夫虽有巨大的文学成就，却也是一个虚荣且毫无原则的人，一个变节者和谄媚者，他既荣耀又背叛了他的民族，曾在反抗罗马的起义中担任犹太将军，被俘后又奉承罗马征服者，并因此得到了丰厚的奖赏。历史上不乏类似矛盾的例子。想想本丢·彼拉多，他认为基督无辜，却判他死刑；卢梭和拿破仑一世对基督神性的惊人证言；以及勒南的让步，这些都与他的立场相矛盾。

(3) 奇怪的是，像查斯丁·马特、亚历山大的克莱门、德尔图良，或在优西比乌（卒于340年）之前的任何其他作家都没有引用这段证词，尤其是奥利金，他明确提到了约瑟夫关于施洗约翰和雅各的段落（《驳克尔苏》I. 35, 47）。甚至克里索斯托（卒于407年），他多次提到约瑟夫，似乎也对这段证词一无所知。

鉴于这些相互矛盾的理由，存在不同观点：

(1) 该段落完全真实。这一传统观点由奥特维尔（Hauteville）、奥伯蒂尔（Oberthür）、布雷特施奈德（Bretschneider）、伯默特（Böhmert）、惠斯顿（Whiston）、舍德尔（Schoedel, 1840）、伯特格（Böttger，《约瑟夫的见证》，德累斯顿，1863）等人辩护。

(2) 它完全是基督徒后加的。贝克尔（Bekker，在其1855年版的约瑟夫著作中）、哈泽（Hase, 1865和1876）、凯姆（Keim, 1867）、舒勒（Schürer, 1874）。

(3) 部分真实，部分后加。约瑟夫可能写的是 Χριστὸς οὗτος ἐλέγετο（正如关于雅各的段落），但没有写 ἦν，所有其他基督徒色彩的句子都是在优西比乌之前由抄写员为护教目的添加的。持此观点的有保卢斯（Paulus）、海尼兴（Heinichen）、吉泽勒（Gieseler, I. § 24, p. 81, 德文第4版）、魏茨泽克（Weizsäcker）、勒南（Renan）、法勒（Farrar）。勒南在其《耶稣传》的引言（第xii页）中说：“我相信关于耶稣的段落是真实的。它完全符合约瑟夫的风格，如果这位历史学家提到耶稣，他就应该这样说。人们只是感觉到有一只基督徒的手修饰了这段文字，添加了几个词，否则它几乎是亵渎的，也许还删减或修改了一些表达。”

(4) 它从犹太人的诽谤被彻底改为现在的基督教形式。约瑟夫最初将耶稣描述为一个伪弥赛亚、一个巫师和蛊惑民众的人，他被钉十字架是罪有应得。持此观点的有帕雷特（Paret）和埃瓦尔德（Ewald，《基督史》，第183页，第3版）。

很难不得出这样的结论：约瑟夫必定对犹太历史上最重大的事件有所提及（正如他对施洗约翰和雅各所做的那样），但他的陈述——无论是中立的还是敌对的——被基督徒的手巧妙地扩充或修改，从而丧失了其历史价值。

在其他方面，约瑟夫的著作间接包含了许多宝贵的见证，证实了福音历史的真实性。他的《犹太战争史》无意中成为我们救主关于耶路撒冷城和圣殿被毁预言的惊人注脚；当时犹太人民的大苦难；饥荒、瘟疫和地震；假先知和骗子的兴起，以及他的门徒在这些灾难来临时逃离。所有这些巧合都由博学的拉德纳博士（Dr. Lardner）在其《古代犹太和异教徒对基督教真理的见证集》中详尽地追溯出来，该书首次出版于1764-67年，也收录于其《著作集》第六卷，由基皮斯（Kippis）编辑，伦敦，1838年。

V. 异教徒的见证稀少且简略。

这一事实必须从基督生平与事工的神秘起源、短暂持续和非世俗性来解释，他完全致力于天国，并且是在一个偏远的国家，在一个被骄傲的希腊人和罗马人鄙视的民族中进行的。

最早的异教徒见证可能是在公元约74年，哲学家马拉（Mara）写给他儿子塞拉皮翁（Serapion）的叙利亚文信中，该信由库雷顿（Cureton）首次发表于《叙利亚文选集》（Spicilegium Syriacum，伦敦，1855年），并由普拉滕（Pratten）翻译收录于《安特尼西亚文库》（”Ante-Nicene Library”，爱丁堡，第xxiv卷（1872年），104-114页）。信中将基督比作苏格拉底和毕达哥拉斯，称他为“犹太人的智慧君王”，犹太人因谋杀他而受到应有的惩罚。埃瓦尔德（Ewald，l.c. 第180页）称这份见证“因其简洁、独创性及年代久远而非常引人注目”。

公元1-2世纪的罗马作家仅简略地、偶然地提及基督是基督教的创始人，以及他在提庇留统治时期在本丢·彼拉多手下被钉十字架。塔西佗（Tacitus）在其《编年史》卷十五第44章中，在记述罗马大火和尼禄迫害时提到他，写道：“基督教[基督]这个名字的创始人在提比略统治时期，由总督本丢·彼拉多处以极刑。(Auctor nominis ejus [Christiani] Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat)”，并称基督教为一种“致命的迷信”（exitiabilis superstitio）。可比较他在《历史》卷五第3-5章中对犹太人同样轻蔑的歪曲描述。其他记载见于苏维托尼乌斯（Suetonius）的《克劳狄传》第25章；《尼禄传》第16章；小普林尼（Plinius, jun.）的《书信集》卷十第97、98篇；琉善（Lucian）的《佩雷格里努斯之死》第11章；兰普里狄乌斯（Lampridius）的《亚历山大·塞维鲁传》第29、43章。

基督教的异教徒反对者，如琉善（Lucian）、克尔苏斯（Celsus）、波菲利（Porphyry）、叛教者朱利安（Julian the Apostate）等，都预设了福音历史的主要事实，甚至包括耶稣的神迹，但他们大多像犹太对手一样，将其归因于邪灵。请参阅我的著作《基督的位格》附录，以及纳撒尼尔·拉德纳博士（Dr. Nath. Lardner）的《可信性与见证集》。

B. 传记与批判

福音书的众多合参本始于公元170年，塔提安（Tatian）的《四福音合参》（to; dia; tessavrwn）；四世纪的以法莲（Ephraem Syrus）曾为此书作注，其拉丁文译本于1876年在威尼斯的亚美尼亚修道院根据亚美尼亚文版本出版。最早的基督传记多为苦修或诗歌体裁，部分带有传奇色彩。参见哈泽（Hase）的《耶稣生平》（Leben Jesu），§ 17–19。批判时期始于赖马鲁斯（Reimarus）、巴尔特（Bahrdt）和文图里尼（Venturini）的不信与臭名昭著的攻击，以及赫斯（Hess）、赫尔德（Herder）和赖因哈德（Reinhard）高尚的护教学著作。但更大的活动是由施特劳斯（Strauss）的《耶稣生平》（Leben Jesu，1835年）和勒南（Renan）的《耶稣传》（Vie de Jésus，1863年）所激发的。

J. J. 赫斯 (苏黎世大主教, 卒于 1828): 《耶稣生平史》(Lebensgeschichte Jesu). 苏黎世, 1774; 第8版 1823, 3卷. 被翻译成荷兰语和丹麦语。他引入了心理学和实用主义的处理方法。

F. V. 赖因哈德 (卒于 1812): 《论耶稣的计划》(Versuch über den Plan Jesu). 维滕贝格, 1781; 第5版由 霍伊布纳 编辑, 1830. 英文翻译, 纽约, 1831. 赖因哈德证明了基督计划的独创性和优越性，超越了以往所有圣贤和人类恩主的构想。

J. G. 赫尔德 (卒于 1803): 《根据我们前三福音书论人类的救赎主》(Vom Erlöser der Menschen nach unsern 3 ersten Evang.). 里加, 1796. 同作者: 《根据约翰福音论上帝之子，世界的救主》(Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland, nach Joh. Evang.). 里加, 1797.

H. E. G. 保卢斯 (海德堡教授, 卒于 1851): 《作为原始基督教纯粹历史基础的耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristenthums). 海德堡, 1828, 2卷. 代表了后来被施特劳斯的思辨理性主义所取代的“庸俗”理性主义。

C. 乌尔曼 (卒于 1865): 《耶稣的无罪性》(Die Sündlosigkeit Jesu). 汉堡, 1828; 第7版 1864. 英文翻译 (第7版) 由 索菲亚·泰勒 完成, 爱丁堡, 1870. 关于耶稣无罪性的最佳著作。另请参阅他的论文 (反对施特劳斯), 《历史的还是神话的？》(Historisch oder Mythisch?), 哥达, 1838.

卡尔·哈泽: 《耶稣生平》(Das Leben Jesu). 莱比锡, 1829; 第5版 1865. 同作者: 《耶稣史》(Geschichte Jesu). 莱比锡, 1876.

施莱尔马赫 (卒于 1834): 《关于耶稣生平的讲座》(Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu), 由吕特尼克编辑. 柏林, 1864. 这些讲座于1832年进行，根据不完整的手稿出版。“来自往昔的声音”。请参阅 D. F. 施特劳斯在《信仰的基督与历史的耶稣》(Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte) 中的评论. 柏林, 1865.

D. F. 施特劳斯 (卒于 1874): 《耶稣生平批判研究》(Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet). 蒂宾根, 1835–’36; 第4版 1840, 2卷. 法文翻译由 埃米尔·利特雷 完成, 巴黎, 1856 (第2版); 英文翻译由 玛丽安·伊万斯 小姐 (以笔名 乔治·艾略特 更为人所知) 完成, 伦敦, 1846, 3卷, 再版于纽约, 1850. 同作者: 《为德意志民族写的耶稣生平》(Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet). 莱比锡, 1864; 第3版 1875. 在这两部著名的著作中，施特劳斯代表了神话理论。该理论在奥尔特和霍伊卡斯的《学习者圣经》第三卷中得以普及，英文翻译，波士顿版, 1879.

A. 尼安德 (卒于 1850): 《耶稣生平》(Das Leben Jesu). 汉堡, 1837; 第5版 1852. 对施特劳斯的正面驳斥。英文版由 麦克林托克和布卢门撒尔 翻译, 纽约, 1848.

约翰·内波穆克·塞普 (罗马天主教徒): 《耶稣基督的生平》(Das Leben Jesu Christi). 雷根斯堡, 1843 sqq. 第2版 1865, 6卷. 包含许多传奇材料。

乔丹·布赫 (罗马天主教徒): 《耶稣基督的生平》(Das Leben Jesu Christi). 斯图加特, 1859.

A. 埃布拉德: 《福音历史的科学批判》(Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte). 埃尔兰根, 1842; 第3版 1868. 反对施特劳斯、布鲁诺·鲍威尔等。简明英文翻译，爱丁堡, 1869.

J. P. 兰格: 《耶稣生平》(Das Leben Jesu). 海德堡, 1844–’47, 3部分共5卷. 英文翻译由 马库斯·多兹 等人完成, 6卷, 爱丁堡, 1864. 内容丰富且富有启发性。

J. J. 范·奥斯特泽: 《耶稣生平》(Leven van Jesus). 首次出版于 1846–’51, 3卷. 第2版 1863–’65. 另请参阅他的《基督论》(Christologie), 鹿特丹, 1855–’61, 3卷, 该书描述了道成肉身前的圣子、肉身中的圣子和荣耀中的圣子。第三部分由 F. 迈耶林 翻译成德文: 《根据圣经的基督形象》(Das Bild Christi nach der Schrift), 汉堡, 1864.

克里斯托弗·弗里德里希·施密德: 《新约圣经神学》(Biblische Theologie des N. Testaments). 由 魏茨泽克 编辑. 斯图加特, 1853 (第3版 1854), 2卷. 第一卷包含基督的生平和教义。由 G. H. 维纳布尔斯 翻译的英文版 (爱丁堡, 1870) 是一个节选本。

H. 埃瓦尔德: 《基督及其时代的史》(Geschichte Christus’ und seiner Zeit). 哥廷根, 1854; 第3版 1867 (为其《以色列史》的第5卷). 由 O. 格洛弗 翻译成英文, 剑桥, 1865.

J. 扬: 《历史中的基督》(The Christ of History). 伦敦和纽约, 1855. 第5版, 1868.

P. 利希滕斯坦: 《耶稣生平年表概述》(Lebensgeschichte Jesu in chronolog. Uebersicht). 埃尔兰根, 1856.

C. J. 里根巴赫: 《关于耶稣生平的讲座》(Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu). 巴塞尔, 1858.

M. 鲍姆加滕: 《为理解当代而写的耶稣史》(Die Geschichte Jesu für das Verständniss der Gegenwart). 不伦瑞克, 1859.

W. F. 格斯: 《根据基督自证及使徒见证的基督位格与工作》(Christi Person und Werk nach Christi Selbstzeugniss und den Zeugnissen der Apostel). 巴塞尔, 1878, 分多部分出版。(此书取代了他1856年出版的关于同一主题的第一部著作。)

贺拉斯·布什内尔 (卒于 1878): 《耶稣的品格：禁止将其与人类归为一类》(The Character of Jesus: forbidding his possible classification with men). 纽约, 1861. (重印自其著作《自然与超自然》第十章, 纽约, 1859.) 这是他天才的最佳和最有用的产物。

C. J. 埃利奥特 (主教): 《关于我们主耶稣基督生平的历史讲座，1859年赫尔辛讲座》(Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, being the Hulsean Lect. for 1859). 第5版, 伦敦, 1869; 再版于波士顿, 1862.

塞缪尔·J. 安德鲁斯: 《我们主在世上的生平，从其历史、年代和地理关系方面加以考察》(The Life of our Lord upon the earth, considered in its historical, chronological, and geographical relations). 纽约, 1863; 第4版, 1879.

欧内斯特·勒南: 《耶稣传》(Vie de Jésus). 巴黎, 1863, 此后多次出版 (第13版, 1867) 并有多种译本。将施特劳斯的理论通俗化和法国化。传奇理论。文笔雄辩、引人入胜，但肤浅且自相矛盾。

丹尼尔·申克尔: 《耶稣的品格形象》(Das Characterbild Jesu). 威斯巴登, 1864; 第4修订版, 1873. 英文翻译由 W. H. 弗内斯 完成. 波士顿, 1867, 2卷. 同作者: 《使徒及后使徒时代的基督形象》(Das Christusbild der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit). 莱比锡, 1879. 另请参阅他在申克尔的《圣经词典》第三卷第257页及后续关于耶稣基督的文章。半神话理论。请参阅施特劳斯对《品格形象》的尖锐批评：《半吊子与完整者》(Die Halben und die Ganzen). 柏林, 1865.

菲利普·沙夫: 《基督的位格：其人性的完美被视为其神性的证明。附公正见证集》(The Person of Christ: the Perfection of his Humanity viewed as a Proof of his Divinity. With a Collection of Impartial Testimonies). 波士顿和纽约, 1865; 第12修订版, 纽约, 1882. 同书德文版, 哥达, 1865; 修订版, 纽约 (美国书会), 1871; 荷兰文版由 科尔德斯 翻译, J. J. 范·奥斯特泽 作序. 格罗宁根, 1866; 法文版由 萨迪努 教授翻译, 图卢兹, 1866, 以及其他语言版本。同作者: 《基督问题》(Die Christusfrage). 纽约和柏林, 1871.

《看这个人》(Ecce Homo: A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ). [由剑桥大学教授 J. R. 西利撰写。] 伦敦, 1864, 并有多个版本和译本。该书还引发了关于《看上帝》(Ecce Deus)、《看神人》(Ecce Deus Homo) 的著作，以及一些评论和文章（其中一篇由格莱斯顿撰写）。

查尔斯·哈德威克 (卒于 1859): 《基督与其他大师》(Christ and other Masters). 伦敦, 第4版, 1875. (赖因哈德著作的扩展；将基督与东方宗教的创始人进行比较。)

E. H. 普伦普特: 《基督与基督教》(Christ and Christendom). 博伊尔讲座. 伦敦, 1866.

E. 德·普雷桑塞: 《耶稣基督，其时代、其生平、其事工》(Jésus Christ, son temps, sa vie, son oeuvre). 巴黎, 1866. (反对勒南.) 同书由安妮·哈伍德翻译成英文 (伦敦, 第7版, 1879), 并由法巴里乌斯翻译成德文 (哈雷, 1866).

F. 德利奇: 《耶稣与希勒尔》(Jesus und Hillel). 埃尔兰根, 1867; 第3修订版, 1879.

西奥多·凯姆 (苏黎世教授，后在吉森，卒于 1879): 《拿撒勒的耶稣史》(Geschichte Jesu von Nazara). 苏黎世, 1867–’72, 3卷. 另有一卷本的节选版, 1873, 第2版, 1875. (此第2版有重要增补，尤其是一个批判性附录。) 该大部头著作由 盖尔达特和兰森 翻译成英文. 伦敦 (Williams & Norgate), 1873–82, 6卷. 同作者: 《历史的基督》(Der geschichtliche Christus). 苏黎世, 第3版, 1866. 凯姆试图从对观福音书，尤其是马太福音，重构一个历史的基督，但排除了约翰福音。

威廉·汉纳: 《我们主的生平》(The Life of our Lord). 爱丁堡, 1868–’69, 6卷.

迪庞卢主教 (罗马天主教): 《我们的救主耶稣基督史》(Histoire de noire Sauveur Jésus Christ). 巴黎, 1870.

弗雷德里克·W. 法勒 (威斯敏斯特大教堂教士): 《基督的生平》(The Life of Christ). 伦敦和纽约, 1874, 2卷. (有多个版本，其中一个带插图).

C. 盖基: 《基督的生平与话语》(The Life and Words of Christ). 伦敦和纽约, 1878,·2卷. (带插图. 多个版本.)

伯恩哈德·魏斯 (柏林教授): 《耶稣生平》(Das Leben Jesu). 柏林, 1882, 2卷, 第3版, 1888. 英文翻译, 爱丁堡, 1885, 3卷.

阿尔弗雷德·埃德希姆: 《弥赛亚耶稣的生平与时代》(The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah). 伦敦和纽约, 1884, 2卷. 严格正统。因其拉比文献的阐释而具价值。

W. 贝施拉格: 《耶稣生平》(Das Leben Jesu). 哈雷, 1885–’86, 2卷; 第2版, 1888.

保卢斯、施特劳斯和勒南的著作（以及法国的博学犹太人约瑟夫·萨尔瓦多，著有《耶稣基督及其教义》，巴黎，1838年）代表了理性主义和破坏性批判的各个阶段，但也催生了大量有价值的护教学文献。参见哈泽的《耶稣生平》第五版第44页及后续，以及其《耶稣史》第124页及后续的书目。施莱尔马赫、格弗雷尔、魏斯、埃瓦尔德、申克尔、哈泽和凯姆在不同程度上，以许多差异，占据了中间立场。伟大的施莱尔马赫几乎在怀疑主义的海洋中沉没，但像彼得一样，他抓住了耶稣向他伸出的拯救之手（马太福音14:30, 31）。哈泽的书目和富有启发性的概述非常有价值，埃瓦尔德和凯姆则因其独立研究和对约瑟夫及当代历史的审慎使用而著称。凯姆拒绝，而埃瓦尔德接受《约翰福音》为真实；两人都承认耶稣的无罪完美，凯姆从他纯粹的批判和对观福音的立场出发，甚至说道（第三卷662页），基督在他对自己时代及后世的巨大超越中，“给人留下神秘孤独、超人奇迹、神圣创造的印象（den Eindruck geheimnissvoller Einsamkeit, übermenschlichen Wunders, göttlicher Schöpfung）。”魏斯和贝施拉格标志着更大的进步，并胜利地捍卫了《约翰福音》的真实性，但在次要细节上对批判学做出了让步。

C. 年代学

开普勒: 《论我们救主耶稣基督的真实出生年份》(De Jesu Christi Servatoris nostri vero anno natalicio). 法兰克福, 1606. 《论永恒上帝之子在蒙福童贞女马利亚腹中取了人性的真实年份》(De vero anno quo aeternus Dei Filius humanam naturam in utero benedicitae Virginis Mariae assumpsit). 法兰克福, 1614.

J. A. 本格尔: 《时代次序》(Ordo Temporum). 斯图加特, 1741, 及 1770.

亨利·桑克莱门特: 《论通用纪元的修正四书》(De Vulgaris Aerae Emendatione libri quatuor).

C. 伊德勒: 《年代学手册》(Handbuch der Chronologie). 柏林, 1825–226, 2卷. 同作者: 《年代学教科书》(Lehrbuch der Chronologie), 1831.

弗兰茨·明特: 《博士之星》(Der Stern der Weisen). 哥本哈根, 1827.

K. 维泽勒: 《四福音年代学合参》(Chronolog. Synopse der vier Evangelien). 汉堡, 1843. 英文翻译由 维纳布尔斯 完成, 第2版, 1877. 辅以其《对福音书正确评价的贡献》(Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien). 哥达, 1869.

亨利·布朗: 《时代秩序》(Ordo Saeclorum). 伦敦, 1844. 比较他在基托的《圣经文学百科全书》第3版中关于 年代学 的文章。

塞缪尔·F. 贾维斯 (美国新教圣公会史官, 卒于 1851): 《教会史年代学导论》(A Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church). 纽约, 1845.

G. 赛法特: 《神圣年代学，关于主出生年份的研究》(Chronologia sacra, Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr des Herrn). 莱比锡, 1846.

鲁道夫·安格: 《博士之星与基督诞生年》(Der Stern der Weisen und das Geburtsjahr Christi). 莱比锡, 1847. 同作者. 《论基督教导职事的年代学》(Zur Chronologie des Lehramtes Christi). 莱比锡, 1848.

亨利·F. 克林顿: 《罗马年鉴》(Fasti Romani). 牛津, 1845–’50, 2卷.

托马斯·勒温: 《论新约年代学的论文》(Essay on the Chronology of the New Testament). 牛津, 1854. 同作者: 《神圣年鉴》(Fasti Sacri) (从公元前70年到公元70年). 伦敦, 1865.

F. 皮佩尔: 《基督诞生的日期》(Das Datum der Geburt Christi), 在其《福音年历》(Evangel. Kalender) 1856年版, pp. 41 sqq.

亨利·吕特罗特: 《居里扭在犹太的户口普查》(Le recensement de Quirinius en Judée). 巴黎, 1865 (134页).

古斯塔夫·勒施: 《论耶稣的诞生年份》(Zum Geburtsjahr Jesu), 在《德国神学年鉴》(Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theol.) 哥达, 1866, pp. 3–48.

查尔斯·爱德华·卡斯帕里: 《耶稣基督生平的年代学-地理学导论》(Chronologisch-Geographische Einleitung in das Leben J. C.). 汉堡, 1869 (263页). 英文翻译由 M. J. 埃文斯完成. 爱丁堡 (T. Clark), 1876.

弗朗西斯·W. 阿珀姆: 《博士们》(The Wise Men). 纽约, 1869 (第八章, 145页, 论开普勒的发现). 同作者的《我们主的星》(Star of Our Lord). 纽约, 1873.

A. W. 聪普特: 《基督的诞生年份》(Das Geburtsjahr Christi). 莱比锡, 1869 (306页). 他非常重视居里扭的双重总督职位，路加福音2:2。请参阅伍尔西校长在《圣经文库》1870年4月号的文章。

赫尔曼·塞文: 《耶稣生平年代学》(Chronologie des Lebens Jesu). 蒂宾根, 第2版, 1874.

弗洛里安·里斯 (耶稣会士): 《基督的诞生年份》(Das Geburtsjahr Christi). 弗赖堡, 1880.

彼得·谢格 (罗马天主教徒): 《希律王驾崩年与耶稣基督受难年》(Das Todesjahr des Königs Herodes und das Todesjahr Jesu Christi). 反对里斯。慕尼黑, 1882.

弗洛里安·里斯: 《再论耶稣基督的诞生年份》(Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi). 回应谢格。弗赖堡, 1883.

伯恩哈德·马蒂亚斯: 《罗马土地税与税收法》(Die römische Grundsteuer und das Vectigalrecht). 埃尔兰根, 1882.

H. 勒库特: 《根据路加福音论居里扭的户口普查与基督诞生年份的论文》(De censu Quiriniano et anno nativitatis Christi secundum Lucam evangelistam Dissertatio). 洛桑, 1883.

§ 15. 基督教的创始人

当“时候满足”，上帝就差遣他的独生子，即“万国所羡慕的”，来救赎世界脱离罪的咒诅，并为所有信他名的人建立一个真理、仁爱与和平的永恒国度。

在耶稣基督里，一段神圣与属人的预备史走向了终点。在他身上，上帝先前对犹太人和外邦人的一切启示达到了顶峰；在他身上，外邦人和犹太人对救赎最深切的渴望和努力得以实现。在他神性的一面，作为道（Logos），根据圣约翰的记述，他是父的永恒之子，是创造和维系世界的媒介，也是所有那些在道成肉身中得以完满的上帝预备性显现的媒介。在他的人性一面，作为拿撒勒的耶稣，他是人类宗教成长的硕果，其属世的祖先，圣马太（以色列的福音书作者）追溯至犹太人的先祖亚伯拉罕，而圣路加（外邦人的福音书作者）则追溯至全人类的始祖亚当。在他里面，有神性一切的丰盛有形有体地居住；在他里面，也实现了人类德行与虔敬的理想。他是永恒的真理，是神圣的生命本身，与我们的本性亲自联合；他是我们的主，我们的上帝；但同时，他也是我们的骨中之骨，肉中之肉。在他里面，宗教的难题——人与上帝的和解与相交——得以解决；我们不应期待比他位格中已经保证和实现的更清晰的上帝启示，或更高的人类宗教成就。

然而，耶稣基督既终结了所有先前的历史，另一方面，他也开启了一个无穷的未来。他是新创造的创始者，是第二亚当，是重生人类之父，是教会的元首，“教会是他的身体，是那充满万有者所充满的。”他是那道光明与生命之流的纯净源泉，此后不间断地流经万国万代，并将继续流淌，直到全地充满对他的赞美，万口都承认他是主，荣耀归于父神。基督精神与生命的普世传播和绝对统治，也将是人类的完成，历史的终结，以及荣耀永恒的开始。

耶稣传记作者的伟大而艰巨的任务，是展示他如何在特定的民族、时代和国家的条件下，通过外部和内部的发展，成为他实际上所是的——在理念和目标上，以及在基督教信仰中将继续是的——神人与世界的救主。他从永恒就具有神性，所以他不可能变成上帝；但作为人，他受制于人类生命的法则和逐步成长的规律。“他的智慧和身量，并神和人喜爱他的心，都一齐增长。”[1] 他虽然是神的儿子，“还是因所受的苦难学了顺从；他既得以完全，就为凡顺从他的人成了永远得救的根源。”[2] 历史上的拿撒勒人耶稣与信仰中的理想基督之间没有冲突。充分理解他那真正属人的生命，正因其完美和超越前后所有人的崇高，必将引导人承认他自己关于其神性的见证。

“深扎你的根，哦，天上的葡萄树，
在我们尘世的土壤中！

最具人性，却又最神圣，
是人与神之花！”

耶稣基督降生于凯撒奥古斯都，第一位罗马皇帝的时代，在大希律王去世之前，比我们传统上的狄奥尼修斯纪元早四年。他生于犹太的伯利恒，属大卫的王室血脉，由马利亚，“已婚的处女和童贞的母亲”所生。当时世界和平，雅努斯神庙的大门在罗马历史上仅第二次关闭。这一巧合具有诗意和道德上的契合：它确保了和平的温柔信息能够被听见，否则它可能会被战争的激情和武器的喧嚣所淹没。天上的天使以赞美之歌宣告他诞生的好消息；邻近田野的犹太牧羊人和远方东方的异教智者以信心的敬拜迎接这位新生的君王和救主。天地同聚，欢欣地敬拜圣婴，而这一事件的祝福年复一年地在高低贵贱、贫富老幼之间，在整个文明世界中更新。

一个完美的童年，无罪而圣洁，却又真实而自然，这个概念在以前从未进入过任何诗人或历史学家的脑海；而当伪经福音书的传奇想象试图填补福音书作者贞洁的沉默时，它描绘了一个不自然的神童，野生动物、树木和哑巴偶像都向他鞠躬，他还能把泥球变成飞鸟来取悦他的玩伴。

耶稣的青年时代笼罩在神秘之中。我们只知道一件，但却是非常重要的一件事。当他十二岁时，他在圣殿里以他的问题和回答使博士们惊讶，却没有因不谦虚和早熟的智慧而使他们反感，并以他对天父之事的专注使他的父母充满了敬畏和崇敬，然而他在凡事上都顺从他们。在这里，历史上的超自然奇迹与伪经虚构的不自然神童之间也有一条清晰的界线，后者将耶稣描绘成对天文学、医学、物理学、形而上学和超物理学的难题给出最博学的回答。[3]

他青年时期的外部条件和环境，与他公开传道生涯的惊人成果形成了鲜明对比。他在一个以微不足道而闻名的偏远加利利山村，在一个卑微的木匠铺里，安静而不为人知地长大，远离耶路撒冷城，远离学校和图书馆，除了最卑微的犹太人所能得到的那些——虔诚父母的关怀、大自然的美景、会堂的礼拜、灵魂与上帝的秘密交通，以及旧约圣经，这些圣经以预表和预言记录了他自己的品格和使命——之外，别无教诲。所有试图将其教义归因于任何当时存在的学派和教派的尝试都彻底失败了。他从未引用过长老的传统，除非是为了反对它们。他与法利赛人和撒都该人皆有不同，并激起了他们致命的敌意。他从未与爱色尼人接触过。他独立于人类的学问和文学，独立于学校和党派。他教导世界，如同一个对世界毫无亏欠的人。他从天而降，出于他与伟大的耶和华亲自交通的丰满而说话。他不是学者，不是艺术家，不是演说家；然而他比所有圣贤都更有智慧，他说话的方式前所未有，他对他的时代以及后世所有时代所产生的影响，是任何人都无法企及的。因此，他的同乡们自然会惊讶地问：“这人从哪里有这些事呢？”“这人没有学过，怎么会明白书呢？”[4]

他在三十岁时开始公开传道，在约翰的洗礼为他举行弥赛亚就职仪式之后，以及在旷野经受弥赛亚的考验之后——这与第一个亚当在乐园中的试探形成对比。那段传道生涯只持续了三年——然而在这三年中，凝聚了宗教史上最深刻的意义。从未有任何伟大的生命如此迅速、如此安静、如此谦卑地度过，如此远离世界的喧嚣与骚动；也从未有任何伟大的生命在其结束后，激起如此普遍而持久的兴趣。他意识到了这种对比：他预言了自己最深的屈辱，甚至死在十字架上，以及此后这十字架不可抗拒的吸引力，这在凡他名所及之处，日复一日地被见证。能说出“我若从地上被举起来，就要吸引万人来归我”[5] 的人，比他前后所有的圣贤和立法者都更了解历史的进程和人心。

他拣选了十二个使徒为犹太人，七十个门徒为外邦人，不是从学者和领袖中拣选，而是从加利利不识字的渔夫中拣选。他没有家，没有属世的财产，没有权贵朋友。几个虔诚的妇女时常为他补充钱囊；而这钱囊却在一个贼和叛徒的手中。他与税吏和罪人交往，为要将他们提升到更高尚的生命，并在被当时骄傲的教阶所鄙视和忽略的下层阶级中开始他的改革。他从不讨好权贵，反而招致他们的憎恨和迫害。他从不奉承时代的偏见，反而斥责高低贵贱中的罪恶，他最严厉的话语是针对那些瞎眼领路的、自以为义的假冒为善之人，他们坐在摩西的位上。他从不鼓励民众属肉体的弥赛亚希望，当他们想立他为王时，他就退去，并在罗马帝国代表面前宣称他的国不属这世界。他向门徒宣告他自己的殉道，并应许他们今生只有同样的血的洗礼。他在巴勒斯坦各处行走，常常旅途劳顿，却从不厌倦他爱的工，为人的灵魂和身体行善，说出属灵和生命的话语，施行能力和怜悯的神迹。

他教导最纯正的教义，作为他天父的直接启示，出自他自己的直觉和经验，并带着一种命令人无条件信靠和顺服的能力与权柄。他超越了党派和宗派的偏见，超越了他时代和民族的迷信。他直面人的内心，触动良知的深处。他宣告建立一个属灵的国度，这国度将从最小的种子长成一棵大树，并像酵母一样从内部发酵，逐渐渗透所有国家和地区。这个宏伟的构想，从未进入过人类的想象，他即使在屈辱的最黑暗时刻，在犹太公会和罗马总督的法庭前，当被当作罪犯悬挂在十字架上时，也坚守着；而这个构想的真理，在教会历史的每一页，在地球上的每一个宣教站，都得到了阐明。

伴随他教导的奇迹或神迹，是他对人和自然力量的超自然而非不自然的展示；不是对律法的违背，而是更高律法的彰显，是心灵对物质的优越，是精神对心灵的优越，是神圣恩典对人性的优越。它们都具有最高的道德和深刻的象征意义，出于纯粹的仁慈，旨在造福人类；与欺骗性的戏法和伪经虚构中无用而荒谬的奇迹形成鲜明对比。它们的施行毫无炫耀，极其简单轻松，以至于仅被称为他的“工作”。它们是他教义的实践证明，也是他奇妙位格的自然反映。在这样一位奇妙的人物身上，若没有奇妙的工作，那才是最大的奇迹。

他的教义和神迹，由他在私人和公共生活中最纯洁、最圣洁的生命所印证。他能向他最刻薄的对手挑战说：“你们中间谁能指证我有罪呢？”他深知他们找不出任何瑕疵。

最后，他以顺服受苦的被动顺从来完成了他主动的顺从，欣然顺服上帝的圣意。被犹太教阶所恨恶和迫害，被犹大出卖到他们手中，被假见证人指控，被公会定罪，被人民拒绝，被彼得否认，但被罗马法律和正义的代表宣布无罪，被他哭泣的母亲和忠心的门徒环绕，在那些黑暗的时刻，通过言语和沉默揭示了羔羊的温柔和上帝的尊严，为他的凶手祈祷，将天堂的一席之地赐予悔改的盗贼，将他的灵魂交托给他的天父——他死了，喊着：“成了！”他在壮年之前就去世了。世界的救主竟是一位青年！他死于十字架的羞辱之死——义的代替不义的，无罪的代替有罪的，这是一个无限慈爱的自由自我牺牲，为要使世界与上帝和好。他在罪与死的领地上战胜了它们，从而救赎并圣化了所有愿意接受他的恩惠并效法他榜样的人。他设立了主的晚餐，以纪念他的死和他宝血的洁净与赎罪大能，直到时间的尽头。

第三天，他从坟墓里复活，是死亡和地狱的征服者，是生命和复活的君王。他多次向他的门徒显现；他差遣他们向万民传复活的福音；他登上天上的宝座，藉着圣灵的浇灌，建立了教会，此后他一直保护、滋养和安慰教会，并应许与教会同在，直到他再来荣耀地审判活人死人。

这就是福音书作者以孩童般的纯朴所讲述的故事的大纲，然而其影响比历史写作的最高艺术所能产生的更为普遍和持久。他们谦逊地避免在记录主的言行时加入自己的感想，主的“荣耀，他们见过，正是父独生子的荣耀，充充满满地有恩典有真理。”

谁会不畏惧尝试描述耶稣的道德品格，或者，即使尝试了，不对结果感到不满意呢？谁能将海洋倒入水桶？谁（我们或许可以引用拉瓦特的话）“能用木炭画出旭日的荣耀？”在这种情况下，没有任何艺术家的理想能达到现实，尽管他的理想可能超越任何其他现实。一个人越善良、越圣洁，就越感到自己需要饶恕，以及自己离自己不完美的卓越标准有多远。但耶稣，与我们有同样的本性，也同样受过试探，却从未屈服于试探；他从未有过为任何思想、言语或行为后悔的理由；他从不需要饶恕、悔改或改革；他从未与他的天父失去和谐。他的一生是一次不间断的自我奉献，为了上帝的荣耀和他同胞的永恒福祉。一份无论多完整的德行和恩典的清单，都只会给我们一个机械的看法。正是耶稣的无瑕纯洁和无罪性，被朋友和敌人所承认；正是所有恩典的均匀和谐与对称，对上帝的爱与对人的爱，尊严与谦卑，力量与温柔，伟大与朴素，自制与顺服，主动与被动德行的和谐；总之，正是那绝对的完美，使他的品格远超所有其他人的境界，成为普遍规律的一个例外，成为历史上的一个道德奇迹。将他与古代或现代的圣徒和智者相比较是徒劳的。即使是不信神的卢梭也不得不惊叹：“如果苏格拉底像一位智者一样生活和死亡，那么耶稣则像一位神一样生活和死亡。”这里有比我们头顶的星空和我们内心的道德律更伟大的东西，那曾让康德的灵魂充满了不断增长的敬畏。这里是人性的至圣所，这里是天堂之门。

在承认基督的人性完美——历史学家又怎能不这样做呢？——我们被推向更深一步，即承认他那惊人的宣告，这些宣告要么是真实的，要么就会摧毁他普遍受到的敬佩和尊崇的所有基础。如果不承认基督生平的超自然和奇迹性质，就不可能构建出他的生平。

基督的神性，以及他作为救赎主的整个使命，是一个信仰条款，因此，它超越了逻辑或数学的证明。道成肉身，即无限的神性与有限的人性在一个位格中的联合，确实是奥秘中的奥秘。“有什么比上帝更荣耀？有什么比肉体更卑贱？有什么比上帝在肉身中更奇妙？”[6] 然而，撇开所有不属于历史学家范畴的教条化不谈，基督的神性有一种自我证明的力量，它不可抗拒地强加于反思的心灵和历史探究者之上；而否认它则使他的位格成为一个无法解释的谜。

这与他自己明确的见证是分不开的，这见证在每一本福音书中都有所体现，只是在对观福音和约翰福音之间程度略有不同。请仔细思考！他宣称自己是应许已久的弥赛亚，成全了律法和先知，是一个新的普世国度的创始者和立法者，是世界的光，是万国万代的导师，他的权威不容置疑。他宣称自己来到这个世界是为了将世界从罪恶中拯救出来——这是任何凡人都不可能做到的。他宣称有权柄在地上赦罪；他屡次行使这权柄，并且正如他所预言的，正是为了人类的罪，他流了自己的血。他邀请所有人都来跟随他，并应许凡信他的人得享平安和永生。他宣称自己在亚伯拉罕和世界之前就已存在，拥有神圣的名号、属性和敬拜。他在十字架上分配乐园中的位置。在指示门徒为万民施洗时，他将自己与永恒的父和神圣的灵并列，并应许与他们同在，直到世界的末了，并将在荣耀中再来，审判所有的人。他，这位最谦卑、最温柔的人，以最轻松自然的方式提出这些惊人的主张；他从不犹豫，从不道歉，从不解释；他将它们宣告为不言而喻的真理。我们反复阅读，却从未感到任何不协调，也从未想到傲慢和自负。

然而，这见证若非真实，必定是彻头彻尾的亵渎或疯狂。前一种假设，在耶稣的道德纯洁与尊严面前，瞬间便站不住脚，这在他的每一言一行中都得以显现，并为普世所公认。在如此重大的事情上自欺，且其智力在各方面都如此清晰健全，同样是不可能的。一个从未失去心智平衡，平静地驶过所有困苦与逼迫，如太阳驾于云层之上，对诱惑性的问题总能给出最明智的回答，冷静而深思熟虑地预言自己将在十字架上受死、第三天复活、圣灵的浇灌、教会的建立、耶路撒冷的毁灭——这些预言都已逐字应验——这样的人，怎会是狂热者或疯子？一个如此独特、如此完整、如此始终如一、如此完美、如此属人又远超一切人类伟大的品格，既不可能是欺诈，也不可能是虚构。正如有人所说，在这种情况下，诗人将比英雄更伟大。要虚构一个耶稣，需要比耶稣更伟大的人物。

于是，我们只能承认基督的神性；理性本身也必须在这句震撼人心的话语面前静默敬畏：“我与父原为一！”并与多疑的多马一同回应：“我的主！我的神！”

这一结论得到了耶稣显现所产生效果的证实，这些效果远远超出了任何单纯的人类能力和力量。基督教的历史，及其无数的果实——一种比以往任何时候所知或在其影响范围之外所知的更高、更纯洁的真理与爱的生命——是对基督生平的持续注释，并在每一页上都见证了他神圣榜样的启示。他的力量在每一个主日，从成千上万的讲坛上被感受到，在君王的宫殿和乞丐的茅屋里，在大学和学院里，在每一所宣读登山宝训的学校里，在监狱、济贫院、孤儿院以及幸福的家庭里，在学术著作和简单的传单中，层出不穷。如果我们的这段历史有任何价值，它就是一个新的证据，证明基督是堕落世界的光和生命。

并且没有迹象表明他的力量正在减弱。他的国度比以往任何时候都更广阔，并有着在全地最终得胜的最美好前景。据说拿破仑在圣赫勒拿岛时，曾深思，如今有数以百万计的人愿意为那位以爱建立属灵帝国的被钉十字架的拿撒勒人而死，而没有人会为亚历山大、凯撒或他自己——这些以武力建立属世帝国的人——而死。他在这对比中看到了基督神性的有力论据，他说：“我了解人，我告诉你们，基督不是人。关于基督的一切都令我惊奇。他的精神压倒并使我困惑。他与任何其他存在都无法相比。他独一无二。”[7] 而另一位杰出天才歌德，性格截然不同，但同样无可怀疑地对宗教不偏不倚，在他生命的最后几年回顾广阔的历史领域时，也不得不承认，“如果神圣曾在地上显现，那就是在基督的位格中”，并且“人类的心智，无论在其他任何领域取得多大进步，也永远不会超越基督教的高度和道德文化，正如它在福音书中所闪耀的那样。”

理性主义、神话主义和传奇主义试图以纯粹的人类和自然为基础来解释基督的生平，并将奇迹元素解释为普通事件或无害的虚构，但这些尝试都在基督的品格和见证这块磐石上碰壁。如今，最能干的不信神传记作者都声称对他的品格怀有最深的敬意，并赞扬他是地球上出现过的最伟大的圣贤。但是，通过拒绝他关于自己神圣起源和使命的见证，他们将他变成了一个骗子；通过拒绝复活的奇迹，他们使基督教这一伟大事实成为无源之水、无基之屋、无因之果。他们否认物质上的奇迹，却期望我们相信更伟大的心理奇迹；是的，他们用自己想象中不自然的神童和难以置信的荒谬来取代历史上超自然的奇迹。此外，他们相互驳斥和取代。十九世纪错误的历史是一部自我毁灭的历史。一个假设刚成熟，另一个就被发明出来取而代之，结果也遭遇同样的命运；而基督教古老的真理和信仰依然屹立不倒，并在其和平征服罪恶与错误的道路上前进。

诚然，耶稣基督，福音书中的基督，历史中的基督，被钉十字架又复活的基督，神人二性的基督，是所有事实中最真实、最确定、最蒙福的。而这个事实是一种无处不在且不断增长的力量，它渗透教会，征服世界，并且本身就是最好的证据，如同天空中闪耀的太阳。这个事实是解决罪与死的可怕奥秘的唯一答案，是通往敬爱上帝和人类的神圣生活的唯一启示，也是通往幸福与和平的唯一指引。人类智慧的体系会来来去去，王国和帝国会兴衰更替，但在未来的所有时代，基督将永远是“道路、真理、生命”。

§ 16. 基督生平年表

参见 §14, p. 98 的文献, 特别是 Browne, Wieseler, Zumpt, Andrews, 和 Keim 的著作。

我们简要地考察基督生平的年代日期。

I. 基督的诞生年份。

——这必须通过历史和年代学研究来确定，因为没有确定且一致的传统。我们的基督纪元是由六世纪的罗马修道院长小狄奥尼修斯（Dionysius Exiguus）引入的，并在两个世纪后查理曼大帝统治时期普遍使用，它将耶稣诞生定于罗马建城后754年12月25日。[8] 几乎所有的年代学家都同意，这至少错了四年。基督诞生于罗马建城后750年（即公元前4年），如果不是更早的话。

这一点从福音书中以下的年代学线索，与约瑟夫、当代作家的记载相比较并得到证实，以及天文计算中可以明显看出。

希律王之死。

(1) 根据马太福音2:1（参看路加福音1:5, 26），基督诞生于“希律王一世或大希律王的日子”，根据约瑟夫的记载，希律王于罗马建城后750年，在逾越节前夕死于耶利哥，享年近七十岁，在位三十七年。[9] 这一日期已被月食的天文计算所证实，该月食发生于罗马建城后750年3月13日，即希律王死前几天。[10] 如果考虑到基督诞生与希律王屠杀伯利恒婴孩之间有两个月或更长的时间，那么基督的诞生至少必须追溯到罗马建城后750年（即公元前4年）的二月或一月，如果不是更早的话。

一些人从伯利恒“两岁及以下”[11] 男婴被屠杀推断，基督必定在希律王死前两年出生；但希律王是从博士们初见那星的时候算起（太2:7），并且希望确保达到目的。没有充分理由怀疑这一事实本身，以及与之紧密相连的圣家逃往埃及的事件。因为，尽管约瑟夫忽略了这一可怕行为，但它与希律王众所周知的残忍相符，他因嫉妒杀害了他宠爱的妻子玛利暗的祖父许尔堪；然后是玛利暗本人，他曾对她 passionately attached；她的两个儿子亚历山大和亚里士多德；在他死前仅五天，又杀害了他的长子安提帕特；并且命令在他临终时聚集在他身边的所有贵族在他死后被处决，这样至少他的死能伴随着普世的哀悼。对于这样一个怪物，在一个小镇[12] 屠杀一二十个婴儿是一件很小的事情，很容易被忽略，或者由于它与弥赛亚有关，被犹太历史学家故意忽略。但马可罗比乌斯（一位罗马语法学家，可能是异教徒，约公元410年）讲述的一则轶事中保存了对此事的模糊记忆，即奥古斯都听到希律王杀害“两岁以下的男孩”和他自己的儿子后，评论说“做希律王的猪比做他的儿子好。”[13] 希律王的残酷迫害和逃往埃及是早期教会经历的一个重要标志，也是每一个殉道时期的安慰之源。

博士之星。

(2) 马太福音2:1–4, 9中另一个经天文学验证的年代学线索是博士之星，它出现在希律王去世之前，自然会引起东方占星智者的注意，这与当时犹太人中期待一位伟大君王降临的信念有关。这种信念自然源于巴兰关于“有星要出于雅各”（民数记24:17）的预言，以及以赛亚和但以理的弥赛亚预言，并且自犹太人被掳散居以来在东方广为流传。[14]

对那颗星的旧解释要么认为它是一颗流星，要么是一种严格意义上的神迹现象，超出了天文学计算的范围，或许只有博士们才能看见。但天意通常通过自然媒介运作，上帝在这种情况下也是如此，这一点至少因天文学上的一项卓越发现而变得非常可能。伟大而虔诚的开普勒在1603年和1604年观察到木星和土星的合相，1604年3月火星的加入使其更为罕见和明亮。同年秋天（10月10日），他在土星、木星和火星附近观察到一颗异常明亮的新（恒）星，它“以凯旋的盛况出现，就像某位全能的君主访问其王国的首都”。它闪耀着，“像一阵强风吹拂下所见过的最美丽、最荣耀的火炬”，在他看来，这是“上帝一项极其奇妙的作为”。[15] 他的天才意识到这一现象必定能确定基督诞生的年份，经过仔细计算，他确定木星和土星的类似合相，加上后来的火星，以及可能出现的某颗非凡的星，在罗马建城后747年和748年在双鱼座多次发生。

值得注意的是，犹太占星家认为木星和土星在双鱼座的合相具有特殊意义，并将其与弥赛亚的降临联系起来。[16]

开普勒的发现几乎被遗忘，直到十九世纪，才被几位杰出的天文学家独立证实，包括彼得堡的舒伯特、柏林的伊德勒和恩克，以及伦敦的普里查德。普里查德称其“与任何古代天体现象一样确定”。它无疑使博士们前往耶路撒冷和伯利恒的朝圣之旅变得更加可以理解。“占星术之星因此变成了年代学之炬”（如伊德勒所说），也成为支持第一福音书真实性的一个论据。[17]

有人反对说，马太似乎指的是一颗单独的星（ajsthvr，比较马太福音2:9），而不是一个星的组合（a[stron）。因此，维泽勒博士通过引入一颗根据中国天文表在罗马建城后750年2月至4月出现的单颗彗星来补充开普勒和伊德勒的计算，平格雷和洪堡都承认这是历史性的。但这有点牵强，也未必必要；因为开普勒描述的那颗非凡的星，或普里查德描述的木星在其最亮时的样子，在那次难忘的合相中，足以符合马太对一颗单独的星的描述，无论如何，马太的语言不应过于字面地理解；因为圣经对天体的语言不是科学的，而是现象学的和通俗的。上帝俯就了博士们的占星信仰，并且很可能在星出现之前和之后也对他们有内在的启示（比较2:12）。

如果我们接受这些天文学家计算的结果，我们就可以将基督的诞生年份确定在两年之内，即罗马建城后748年（开普勒）到750年（维泽勒）之间。这种差异当然是由于博士们出发时间和旅途长短的不确定性。

由于这个天文学论证经常被粗心和错误地陈述，而且开普勒和伊德勒的著作至少在美国不易获得（我在阿斯特图书馆找到了它们），请允许我更详细地陈述此事。约翰·开普勒写了三篇关于基督诞生年份的论文，两篇用拉丁文（1606年和1614年），一篇用德文（1613年），其中他以非凡的学识讨论了与该主题相关的各种经文和事实。这些论文重印于克里斯托弗·弗里施博士编辑的他的《全集》（法兰克福和埃尔朗根，1858-70年，8卷），第四卷第175页及后续；第201页及后续；第279页及后续。他对导致他进行这项研究的星座的天文观测，在他关于《蛇夫座脚下的新星》（De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarii，全集，第二卷，第575页及后续）和《奇异现象或太阳中的水星》（Phenomenon singulare seu Mercurius in Sole，同上，第二卷，第801页及后续）的论文中有详细描述。伊德勒教授本人既是天文学家又是年代学家，在他的《数学和技术年代学手册》（Handbuch der mathemat. und technischen Chronologie，柏林，1826年，第三卷，第400页及后续）中，对开普勒和他自己的观测给出了如下清晰的总结：

“通常认为博士之星，如果不是想象的虚构，就是某个偶然或为此目的出现的流星。我们既不属于不信者也不属于过信者（weder zu den Ungläubigen noch zu den Uebergläubigen），并与开普勒一样，认为这个星象是真实的，并且可以通过计算很好地确定，即作为木星和土星的合相。马太只说一颗星（ἀστήρ），而不是一个星座（ἄστρον），这不必困扰我们，因为这两个词经常被混淆。这位刚才提到的伟大天文学家，他对当时及以前的占星术非常熟悉，并偶尔用它来向外行推荐天文学，并赢得他们的注意和尊重，他在1603年底观察到上述两颗行星的合相时，首次产生了这个想法。合相发生在12月17日。次年春天，火星加入了它们的行列，而在1604年秋天，又出现了一颗星，是那些类似恒星的天体之一（einer jener fixstern-artigen Körper），它们会变得相当明亮，然后逐渐消失，不留任何痕迹。这颗星位于两颗行星附近，在蛇夫座的东脚，当最后一次被看到时，它是一颗亮度非凡的一等星。它的亮度逐月减弱，到1605年底，它从当时还无法借助良好光学仪器辅助的肉眼中消失了。开普勒专门写了一部关于这颗《蛇夫座脚下的新星》（Stella nova in pede Serpentarii，布拉格，1606年）的著作，并在那里首次提出了博士之星是由土星、木星和某个其他非凡的星组成的观点，但他没有更详细地解释其性质。”伊德勒接着报告说（第404页），开普勒用当时不完善的星表，发现在罗马建城后747年6月、8月和12月，木星和土星在双鱼座也有同样的合相；次年2月和3月，火星也加入了，并且可能还有另一颗非凡的星，这必定极大地激发了迦勒底的占星家们。他们可能先看到了新星，然后是星座。

1821年，西兰主教明特博士重新引起了对这一卓越发现的关注，并指出了阿巴尔巴内尔对《但以理书》的拉比评注，根据该评注，犹太占星家预计在弥赛亚降临之前，木星和土星将在双鱼座合相，并请求天文学家重新调查这一点。此后，彼得堡的舒伯特（1823年）、柏林的伊德勒和恩克（1826年和1830年），以及最近伦敦的普里查德，都验证了开普勒的计算。

伊德勒这样描述他的计算结果（第二卷，405页）：我非常仔细地进行了计算……结果相当引人注目。这两颗行星[木星和土星]于罗马建城后747年5月20日，在双鱼座20度首次合相。它们当时在日出前出现在天空中，相距仅一度。木星向北经过土星。九月中旬，两者在午夜时分在南方与太阳对冲。经度差为一度半。两者都在逆行，并再次相互靠近。10月27日，在双鱼座16度发生了第二次合相，11月12日，当木星再次向东移动时，在同一星座的15度发生了第三次合相。在后两次合相中，经度差也仅约一度，因此对于视力较弱的人来说，这两颗行星可能看起来像一颗星。如果犹太占星家对这两颗上行星在双鱼座的合相寄予厚望，那么这一次对他们来说必定显得最为重要。”

在他于1831年在柏林出版的较短的《年代学教科书》中，伊德勒基本上给出了相同但略有删减的记述，只是根据著名天文学家恩克用更好的星表进行的新计算，对数字稍作修改，恩克将罗马建城后747年木星和土星的第一次合相定于5月29日，第二次定于9月30日，第三次定于12月5日。参见恩克的完整星表，第429页。

我们用皇家天文学会名誉秘书查尔斯·普里查德牧师（Rev. Charles Pritchard, M.A.）关于博士之星的一篇文章的摘录来补充这部分内容。他对罗马建城后747年5月至12月的星象进行了新的计算，并将结果发表在《皇家天文学会回忆录》第二十五卷和史密斯的《圣经词典》第3108页（美国版）。他说：“在那个时候[公元前7年9月底]，毫无疑问，木星会向天文学家，尤其是在如此晴朗的大气中，呈现出一幅壮丽的景象。它那时正处于最明亮的出现期，因为它最接近太阳和地球。离它不远处可以看到它更暗淡、更不显眼的伴星土星。这壮丽的景象几乎没有变化地持续了几天，然后两颗行星再次缓慢分开，然后停顿，当木星恢复顺行时，它再次接近与土星的第三次合相，这正好是博士们可能进入圣城的时候。而且，为了使这个故事更加引人入胜，日落后约一个半小时，从耶路撒冷可以看到这两颗行星，仿佛悬挂在子午线上，悬浮在远方的伯利恒上空。这些天体现象，如上所述，是毋庸置疑的，乍一看，它们确实似乎满足了博士之星的条件。”如果普里查德尽管如此还是拒绝将这个星座与马太福音中的单颗星等同起来，那是因为他对马太福音的语言理解过于字面化，即那颗星“在前头行”（προῆγεν αὐτούς）并且“停在……上头”（ἐστάθη ἐπάνω），这无论如何都会使其成为奇迹。

提庇留十五年。

(3) 路加福音3:1, 23为我们提供了关于施洗约翰和基督开始公开传道时在位君王的重要且显然是经过仔细考察的指示，根据利未人的习俗，他们是在三十岁时开始的。[18] 施洗约翰在“提庇留作王第十五年”[19] 开始传道，而耶稣只比约翰小约六个月（比较路加福音1:5, 26），受洗并开始教导时“约有三十岁”。[20] 提庇留于罗马建城后764年（或无论如何在765年初）开始与奥古斯都共同执政，成为“帝国的同事”，并于罗马建城后767年8月19日（公元14年）独立执政；因此，他作王的第十五年要么是罗马建城后779年，如果我们从共同执政时算起（路加可能就是这样做的，使用了更宽泛的词 ἡγεμονία 而非 μοναρχία 或 βασιλεία[21]），要么是782年，如果我们从独立执政时算起（这是罗马通常的方法）。[22]

现在，如果我们从罗马建城后779年或782年往回推算三十年，我们就会得出约翰的出生年份为罗马建城后749年或752年，而基督的出生年份比这早大约六个月。前者（749年）无疑是更可取的，并且与路加自己关于基督在希律王统治下出生的陈述（路加福音1:5, 26）相符。[23]

狄奥尼修斯可能（因为我们对此没有确切的了解）是从提庇留独立统治时期开始计算的；但即使那样，也无法得出754年，并且会使路加与马太以及他自己产生矛盾。[24]

路加福音3:1中的其他日期大体与此结果相符，但不够明确。本丢·彼拉多在公元26年至36年间任犹太总督十年。希律·安提帕于公元39年被卡利古拉废黜。他的兄弟腓力于公元34年去世。因此，如果基督的公开传道持续三年，那么他必定在公元34年之前去世，享年三十三岁。

居里扭的户口普查。

(4) 居里扭的户口普查，路加福音2:2。[25] 路加通过附带的评论为我们提供了另一个年代学日期，即基督出生时大约是凯撒奥古斯都下令进行的那次户口普查或登记之时，那是“居里扭（Cyrenius）作叙利亚巡抚（登记）时的第一次”。<span class=”hint—top hint—rounded” aria-label=”根据蒂申多夫、韦斯科特和霍特的最新文本，这是原文的正确含义（他们与B D一起省略了冠词“ἡ”）： αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου。（意为：这次户口调查是在居里纽作叙利亚总督时第一次进行的。）《武加大译本》（Vulg.）：Haec descriptio prima facta est a praeside Syriae Cyrino. 英文版本“this taxing was first made when,”是不合语法的，需要πρῶτον或πρῶτα而不是πρώτη。 路加要么想说在犹太没有之前的登记，要么更可能他脑海中有在居里纽第二次担任总督时进行的第二次、更广为人知的户口调查，他在《使徒行传》5:37中也提到了这一点。 参见下文。 居里纽（Kurhvnio”）是正确的拼写（斯特拉博（Strabo）、约瑟夫斯、塔西佗、殉道者游斯丁），而不是Quirinus，后者也是一个罗马名字；因此造成了混淆。 （参见魏斯（Weiss）在迈耶（Meyer）的《路加福音》第六版，第286页）。 他的全名是普布利乌斯·苏尔皮修斯·居里纽（Publius Sulpicius Quirinius）（塔西佗，《编年史》，Annal., iii 48；苏埃托尼乌斯，《提比略传》，Tiber., 49）。 他在公元742年担任执政官，747年在非洲领导一支军队，并于公元21年在罗马去世。 约瑟夫斯在他的《古史》第十八卷开头提到了他。 在祖姆普特（Zumpt）的书中可以找到关于他的详细介绍，第43-71页。”>[26]</span> 他提及此事是为了解释约瑟和马利亚为何前往伯利恒。马利亚的同行并无困难，因为（除了他为保护她而同行的内在合理性外）在罗马帝国，所有十二岁以上的妇女（以及奴隶）和十四岁以上的男子，直到六十五岁，都需缴纳人头税。[27] 以色列王的诞生与以色列最深的屈辱及其并入罗马这一伟大历史帝国同时发生，具有某种意义。

但路加的陈述似乎与一个事实直接冲突，即居里扭的总督职位和户口普查始于公元6年，即基督诞生后十年。[28] 因此产生了许多牵强的解释。[29] 但现在，通过独立于神学的考古学和语文学研究，这个困难即使没有完全消除，也至少大大减轻了。伯格曼、蒙森，尤其是聪普特几乎无可辩驳地证明，居里扭曾两次担任叙利亚总督——第一次是罗马建城后750年至753年，即公元前4年至1年（当时我们的叙利亚总督名单中恰好有一个空白），第二次是罗马建城后760年至765年（公元6年至11年）。这种双重使节身份基于塔西佗的一段文字，[30] 并由在哈德良别墅和提布尔蒂纳大道之间发现的一块古老的纪念碑铭文所证实。[31] 因此，路加完全可以恰当地称基督诞生时的户口普查为居里扭治下的“第一次”（πρώτη），以区别于他自己在其第二部关于基督教起源史的著作（使徒行传5:37）中提到的第二次、更为人所知的户口普查。也许居里扭作为第一次户口普查监督员的经验，是他被第二次派往叙利亚担任同样职务的原因。

然而，仍有三个不易解决的难题：(a) 居里扭不可能在罗马建城后750年（公元前4年）秋季之前担任叙利亚总督，即希律王死后（希律王死于750年3月）几个月，因此是在基督诞生之后；因为我们从钱币上得知，昆提留·瓦卢斯在罗马建城后748年至750年（公元前6-4年）担任总督，并在希律王死后离任。[32] (b) 除了路加福音，没有任何地方提到居里扭第一次担任总督期间进行过户口普查。(c) 在希律王有生之年，即在犹太成为罗马行省（即罗马建城后759年）之前，叙利亚总督不可能在犹太进行户口普查。

针对这些反对意见，我们可以说：(a) 路加并非意在提供一个精确的，而只是一个大致的年代陈述，他可能将户口普查与著名的居里扭联系起来，因为是他完成了这次普查，尽管普查是在前任总督任内开始的。(b) 奥古斯都在罗马建城后726年至767年间下令进行了几次人口普查，部分是为了税收，部分是为了军事和统计目的；[33] 而且，作为一位优秀的政治家和财政家，他亲自准备了一份帝国总览或简报，即一份帝国所有资源的清单，在他死后，这份清单在元老院被宣读。[34] (c) 希律王只是一个附庸王（rex sosius），没有皇帝的授权，他不能行使任何主权行为。犹太自庞培时代起就需纳税，而且这似乎并未随着希律王的登基而停止。此外，在他生命的末期，他失去了奥古斯都的宠幸，奥古斯都曾愤怒地写信给他，说：“从前我待你如友，如今我将待你如臣。”[35]

诚然，无法通过约瑟夫或罗马历史学家的直接证词证明，奥古斯都曾颁布法令进行一次涵盖所有行省（“天下人民都要报名上册”，路加福音2:1，即罗马世界）的普世性户口普查，但这本身并非不可能，并且对于他准备其帝国总览是必要的。[36] 就其性质而言，执行这样一项法令需要数年时间，并且在各省的执行会根据民族习俗而有所调整。聪普特假设，被派往叙利亚担任总督的森提乌斯·萨图尼努斯（Sentius Saturninus），[37] 他于罗马建城后746年（公元前9年）上任，并一直任职到749年（公元前6年），他在犹太开始了一次户口普查，旨在用货币人头税取代以前习惯性的实物贡赋；他的继任者昆提留·瓦卢斯（公元前6-4年）继续进行，而居里扭（公元前4年）完成了这次普查。这就解释了德尔图良的自信陈述，他必定是从某个可靠来源得知，在奥古斯都统治下，森提乌斯·萨图尼努斯曾在犹太进行过登记。[38] 另一种可能性较小的观点是，居里扭是在其前任总督任内，作为户口普查的特别专员被派往东方的。无论哪种情况，路加都可能称这次户口普查为居里扭治下的“第一次”，考虑到他完成了根据犹太家族登记习俗的个人税收或登记普查，而后来他又独自执行了根据罗马方式的财产税收的第二次普查。

这个问题尚未完全解决；但确定居里扭在耶稣诞生时与罗马在东方的政府有重要联系这一事实，是朝着解决问题迈出的一大步，并鼓励了未来更好解决的希望。[39]

希律王建殿四十六年。

(5) 约翰福音2:20，在基督传道的第一年，犹太人的一句评论为我们提供了一个年代：“这殿是四十六年才造成的，你三日内就再建立起来吗？”

我们从约瑟夫那里得知，希律王在他作王的第十八年开始重建耶路撒冷的圣殿，即罗马建城后732年，如果我们从他被罗马人任命（714年）算起；或者罗马建城后735年，如果我们从安提柯之死和征服耶路撒冷（717年）算起。[40] 后者是正确的观点；否则约瑟夫会自相矛盾，因为在另一段文字中，他将建殿的时间定于希律王作王的第十五年。[41] 将四十六年加到735年上，我们就得到罗马建城后781年（公元27年）为基督传道的第一年；从781年减去三十年半或三十一年，我们又回到了罗马建城后750年（公元前4年）为基督的诞生年份。

钉十字架的时间。

(6) 基督是在双子座执政官（即 C. Rubellius Geminus 和 C. Fufius Geminus）任期内被钉十字架的，他们于罗马建城后782年至783年（公元28年至29年）担任执政官。这一说法由德尔图良提出，并结合了从但以理七十个七中对基督诞生和受难时间的详细计算。[42] 他可能从罗马的某些公共记录中获得了这一信息。他错误地将基督受难的年份与他传道的第一年（提庇留十五年，路加福音3:1）等同起来。如果我们考虑到他公开传道了两年或三年，并且享年三十三岁，我们就可以得出750年或749年为基督的诞生年份。

因此，我们从三位福音书作者的这些零散记载，以及德尔图良的陈述中，基本上得出了相同的结论，这有助于确立福音历史的可信性，以反驳神话理论。然而，由于缺乏精确的日期，以及计算中的不确定性，关于基督诞生年份，在罗马建城后747年（公元前7年）作为最早可能日期，和罗马建城后750年（公元前4年）作为最晚可能日期之间，仍有不同意见的空间。法国本笃会士、桑克莱门特、明特、武尔姆、埃布拉德、贾维斯、奥尔福德、约瑟夫·A. 亚历山大、聪普特、凯姆决定为罗马建城后747年；开普勒（根据当年木星、土星和火星的合相计算）、拉德纳、伊德勒、埃瓦尔德为748年；佩塔维乌斯、厄谢尔、蒂勒蒙、布朗、安格斯、罗宾逊、安德鲁斯、麦克莱伦为749年；本格尔、维泽勒、兰格、利希滕斯坦、安格、格雷斯韦尔、埃利科特、普伦普特、梅里韦尔为750年。

II. 基督诞生的日期。

——我们救主诞生季节的唯一迹象是，当时牧羊人正在田野里看守羊群，路加福音2:8。这一事实指向任何季节，唯独不像冬天，因此虽然不能完全推翻传统日期，但也不利于它。根据塔木德学者的说法，巴勒斯坦的放牧时间（那里只有两个季节，干季和湿季，或夏季和冬季）从三月开始，持续到十一月，那时牧群从田野被带回，并在遮蔽处度过直到二月底。但这主要指的是远离城镇和村庄的旷野牧场，[43] 在城镇附近，根据季节的特点，经常有例外。十二月和一月接连出现晴朗的日子在东方和西方国家都很常见。托布勒，一位经验丰富的圣地旅行家说，伯利恒圣诞节前后的天气有利于放牧，而且常常非常美丽。另一方面，四月常常有强冷风，这解释了约翰福音18:18中提到的火。

约瑟和马利亚前往伯利恒和埃及的旅程，以及博士们的旅程，都无法得出确切的结论。一般来说，二月是去埃及旅行的最佳时间，三月是西奈半岛，四月和五月，其次是秋天，是巴勒斯坦的最佳旅行时间；但需要不拘泥于规则。

古代的传统在这里没有参考价值，因为它直到四世纪都在变化。亚历山大的克莱门记载，有些人认为帕孔月25日（即5月20日），另一些人认为法穆提月24日或25日（4月19日或20日）是耶稣的诞生日。

(1) 传统的12月25日由耶柔米、克里索斯托、巴罗尼乌斯、拉米、厄谢尔、佩塔维乌斯、本格尔（伊德勒）、赛法特和贾维斯所捍卫。除了四世纪，它没有历史权威，当时圣诞节首次在罗马（公元360年之前）引入，其基础是几个罗马节日（农神节、Sigillaria、Juvenalia、Brumalia，或Dies natalis Invicti Solis），这些节日在十二月下旬举行，以纪念自由平等的黄金时代，并向太阳致敬，太阳在冬至时仿佛重生，开始其征服的征程。这种自然现象被视为公义之日头出现、驱散罪恶与谬误长夜的恰当象征。出于同样的原因，夏至（6月24日）后来被选为施洗约翰的节日，作为对他自己谦卑自评——他必衰微，基督必兴旺（约翰福音3:30）——最恰当的提醒。因此，3月25日被选为纪念圣母马利亚领报的日子，而9月24日则被选为纪念以利沙伯怀孕的日子。[44]

(2) 1月6日有一个更古老的传统（根据爱比法尼乌和卡西安的说法）支持，并得到优西比乌的支持。从三世纪起，它在东方被庆祝为主显节，以纪念耶稣的诞生和洗礼，后来也纪念他向外邦人（以博士为代表）的显现。

(3) 其他作家选择了二月的某一天（胡格、维泽勒、埃利科特），或三月（保卢斯、温纳），或四月（格雷斯韦尔），或八月（勒温），或九月（莱特富特，他基于年代学的理由，假设基督生于住棚节，正如他死于逾越节，并在五旬节差遣圣灵），或十月（纽科姆）。拉德纳将出生时间定在八月中旬到十一月中旬之间；布朗定于12月8日；利希滕斯坦定于夏季；罗宾逊则完全不确定。

III. 基督生命的长度。

——现在普遍认为这在三十二或三十三年之间。一两年的差异源于对他公开传道时间长短的不同看法。基督在青壮年时期死去并复活，因此在教会的记忆中也一直如此。老年时期的衰退和软弱与他作为人类更新者和救主的地位不符。

爱任纽，作为波利卡普的门徒（波利卡普又是圣约翰的门徒），在其他方面是使徒传统中最可靠的教父见证人，却持有一个站不住脚的观点，即基督达到了四十或五十岁的成熟年龄，教导了十多年（从三十岁开始），因此他经历了人生的所有阶段，以拯救和圣化“老人”以及“婴孩、孩童、少年和青年”。[45] 他为这一观点援引了源自圣约翰的传统，[46] 并通过对犹太人的一句随意推测的不当推论来支持它，当时犹太人对耶稣声称在亚伯拉罕出生前就已存在的说法感到惊讶，问他：“你还没有五十岁，倒见过亚伯拉罕吗？”[47] 从另一段经文中得出的类似推论，即犹太人谈论希律圣殿建造了“四十六年”，而基督说的是他身体的殿（约翰福音2:20），当然更没有说服力。

IV. 基督公开传道的时间长度。

——它始于约翰的洗礼，终于十字架受难。关于其间的时间长度，除了爱任纽那个孤立且明显错误的观点外，有三种理论，分别认为是一年、两年或三年多一点，并根据逾越节的数量，分别称为“两次逾越节”、“三次逾越节”和“四次逾越节”方案。对观福音只提到了我们主公开传道期间的最后一个逾越节，即他被钉十字架的那个逾越节，但它们暗示他不止一次在犹太。[48] 约翰肯定提到了三个逾越节，其中两个（第一个和最后一个）基督确实参加了，[49] 并且可能还有第四个，他也参加了。[50]

(1) 两逾越节方案将公开传道限制在一年零几周或几个月。这一观点最早由诺斯底派的瓦伦廷派（他们将其与三十个永恒存在的幻想联系起来）以及几位教父，如亚历山大的克莱门、德尔图良，或许还有奥利金和奥古斯丁（他们对此表达了不确定的看法）所持。教父们以及追随他们的合参家们的主要论据，源自基督引用的“主悦纳之年”的预言，[51] 以及逾越节羔羊的预表意义，即羔羊必须是“一岁的”且无瑕疵的。[52] 更重要的是，一些现代批评家从对观福音对其他逾越节的沉默中得出的论据。[53] 但这种沉默本身并非决定性的，必须让位于约翰的明确见证，因为约翰的记载无法与两逾越节方案相协调。[54] 此外，将基督生平的事件、十二门徒的训练以及犹太人敌意的发展，都挤在短短的一年之内，是根本不可能的。

(2) 因此，选择在于“三次逾越节”和“四次逾越节”方案之间。决定主要取决于对约翰福音5:1中未命名的“犹太人的一个节期”的解释，那是一个逾越节，还是另一个节期；而这又很大程度上（虽然不完全）取决于一个读法上的差异（那个节期，还是一个节期）。[55] 不结果的无花果树的比喻，代表犹太民族，被用作支持三年传道期的论据：“看哪，我这三年来到这无花果树前找果子，竟找不着。”[56] 这三年无疑是重要的；但根据犹太人的计算方法，两年半也会被称为三年。更牵强的引用是但以理书9:27的预言：“他必与许多人坚定盟约，为期一周，在一周之半，他必使祭祀与供献止息。”“三次逾越节”理论更容易与对观福音相协调，而“四次逾越节”理论则为安排我们主的讲论和神迹留下了更多空间，并被大多数合参家所采纳。[57]

但即使我们将公开传道的时间延长到三年，它所呈现的持续时间与效果之间的不成比例在历史上也是无与伦比的，并且纯粹从自然角度来看是无法解释的。用一位公正的历史学家的话来说，“短短三年积极生活的简单记录，比起所有哲学家的论述和所有道德家的劝诫，对人类的重生和软化所做的贡献要多得多。这确实是基督徒生活中一切最好、最纯洁事物的源泉。”[58]

V. 主的受难日期。

——基督在十字架上受难的那天是星期五，[59] 在逾越节周期间，在尼散月，这是犹太年十二个阴历月的第一个月，包含了春分。但问题在于，这个星期五是尼散月的14日，还是15日，也就是说，是节期的前一天，还是为期一周的节期的第一天。对观福音明确地判定为15日，因为它们都（独立地）说，我们的主在法定的日子，即“除酵节的第一天”，[60] 吃了逾越节的晚餐，也就是14日的晚上，或者更确切地说是15日的开始（逾越节的羊羔在“两个黄昏之间”，即14日下午3点到5点之间被宰杀）。[61] 另一方面，约翰乍看之下似乎指向14日，这样我们主的死就与宰杀逾越节羊羔的时间非常接近。[62] 但那三四处看似支持这一观点的经文，经过仔细审视，可以，也必须与对观福音的陈述相协调，后者只允许一种自然的解释。[63] 诚然，犹太祭司在庄严的逾越节之夜策划他们的血腥阴谋，并在一个大节期催促钉十字架，这似乎很奇怪，但这与他们罪恶的邪恶是一致的。[64] 此外，另一方面，同样难以解释的是，他们和民众在14日下午晚些时候一直待在十字架旁，而根据律法，他们应该在那时宰杀逾越节的羊羔并为节期做准备；以及尼哥底母和亚利马太的约瑟夫，连同那些虔诚的妇女，埋葬了耶稣的身体，从而在那个庄严的时刻沾染了不洁。

这里所主张的观点得到了天文学计算的加强，计算表明，在可能的受难年份公元30年，尼散月15日确实是星期五（4月7日）；而在公元28年至36年间，这种情况只发生过一次，除非可能在33年也发生过。因此，基督必定在公元30年被钉十字架。[65]

总结结果，以下是我们主在世生命中最可能的日期：

事件 罗马建城后年份 公元纪年
出生 750年（1月？）或749年（12月？） 公元前4年或5年。
受洗 780年（1月？） 公元27年。
公开传道时长 (三年零三或四个月) 780–783年 公元27–30年。
钉十字架 783年（尼散月15日） 公元30年（4月7日）

§ 17. 土地与人民

文献

一、关于圣地的地理和描述性著作：雷兰德（Reland，1714）、罗宾逊（Robinson，1838 和 1856）、里特尔（Ritter，1850-1855）、劳默（Raumer，第 4 版 1860）、托布勒（Tobler，1849 至 1869 年的几篇专著）、W. M. 汤姆森（Thomson，修订版 1880）、斯坦利（Stanley，1853，第 6 版 1866）、特里斯特拉姆（Tristram，1864）、沙夫（Schaff，1878 年，扩充版 1889 年）、格林（Guérin，1869、1875、1880）。

参阅托布勒的《巴勒斯坦地理书目》（Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae，莱比锡，1867 年）以及 P.沃尔夫（Ph. Wolff）在《德国神学年鉴》（Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie）1868 年和 1872 年中，以及索辛（Socin）在《德国巴勒斯坦协会杂志》（Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins）1878 年第 40 页等处提供的最新著作补充清单。

二、关于“新约时代的历史”（Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte，这是近期新引入的历史神学的一个专门分支）的著作：施内克堡（Schneckburger，1862）、豪斯拉特（Hausrath，1868 年起）和许雷尔（Schürer，1874）。

参阅第 8 节第 56 页的文献。

福音书作者所描述的我们主的生平，与我们从同时代作者那里所知、并经现代发现与研究所阐明和证实的地理与历史环境之间，存在着一种奇妙的和谐。这种和谐为福音历史的可信性提供了不小的贡献。我们越是了解耶稣生活的时代和国家，就越能在阅读福音书时感受到，我们正踏在真实历史的坚实大地上，而这历史又被来自天堂的最高启示所照亮。正典福音书的诗意，如果我们可以这样称呼它们在属灵之美上超越所有诗歌的散文的话，不是（像伪经福音书那样的）人类虚构的诗意——“没有古老的寓言，没有神话传说，也没有诗人和先知的梦幻”；它是一种启示真理的诗意，是至高无上事实的诗意，是上帝无限智慧和慈爱的诗意。这种智慧和慈爱曾进入人的想象，但最终在拿撒勒人耶稣身上披上血肉之躯，并通过他的生平和工作解决了我们存在的深层问题。

东方国家和民族的静止特性使我们能够从其现状推断出它们两千年前的样子。在这方面，不断涌现的发现也为我们提供了帮助，甚至让石头和木乃伊也成为过去的雄辩证人。纪念物证据诉诸感官，并压倒了不信的怀疑主义的批判性推测和组合，无论它们多么巧妙和敏锐。当法老们的历史可以从金字塔和狮身人面像、从寺庙和岩墓的废墟中、从早于罗马建城和摩西及以色列人出埃及的象形文字铭文和纸莎草卷轴中被读出来时，谁还会怀疑呢？我们若要将《旧约》和《新约》从历史中抹去，将其归结为虚幻的神话和传说，就如同要将巴勒斯坦从地图上抹去，将其移入仙境一样荒谬。

土地

耶稣在巴勒斯坦度过了他的一生。这片土地面积与马里兰州相仿，比瑞士小，不到苏格兰的一半，但气候宜人、风景秀丽、土壤种类繁多且肥沃，能出产从多雪的北方到热带南方的各种水果。它被沙漠、山脉和大海与其他国家隔离开来，却又地处东半球三大洲的中心，毗邻古代历史民族的地中海航道。因此，它在天意上既适合发展犹太教的特殊主义，也适合发展基督教的普世主义。世界从小的腓尼基人那里获得了字母表，从小的希腊人那里获得了哲学和艺术，而从小的巴勒斯坦人那里获得了所有这些中最好的——真正的宗教和普世的《圣经》。耶稣不可能在凯撒·奥古斯都统治之外的任何其他时间出生，那时犹太教、希腊文明和罗马政府都已成熟；也不可能在巴勒斯坦之外的任何其他地方出生，巴勒斯坦是启示的经典土壤；更不可能在犹太人之外的任何其他民族中出生，犹太民族被预定并接受了几个世纪的教育，为弥赛亚的到来和律法与先知的成就预备了道路。

在他婴孩时期，为了躲避希律的愤怒，他逃难到埃及，然后又返回，可能走了沿着地中海海岸的捷径。他的母亲可能经常告诉他，他们在“为奴之地”短暂寄居的故事，那里是耶和华曾用摩西的大能膀臂，跨过红海，穿过“那大而可畏的旷野”，将他的子民带入应许之地的地方。在他“在旷野”禁食的四十天里，他或许是在西奈山，与摩西和以利亚的灵相交，并在那片可畏而雄辩的寂静之地，为与人类试探者的个人冲突以及在《八福山训》中颁布新的自由律法做准备。因此，《圣经》中的三块土地——以色列的摇篮埃及、它的学校和操场旷野，以及它最后的家园迦南——都曾被“十八个世纪前，为我们被钉在苦难的十字架上”的那些蒙福的脚所踏足和分别为圣。

他为了爱的使命，走遍了犹大、撒马利亚、加利利和比利亚；他曾远至北部的黑门山，甚至有一次越过以色列的土地，到达腓尼基边境，治愈了那个外邦母亲被鬼附的女儿，并对她说：“妇人，你的信心是大的！照你所要的，给你成全了吧。”

我们可以轻松地步行或骑马，每天走二三十英里，跟随他从一个地方到另一个地方，穿过绿色的田野和荒芜的岩石，穿过山丘和山谷，漫步于花草和蓟丛之间，在橄榄树和无花果树下，搭起帐篷休息过夜。我们忽略现代文明的舒适，却陶醉于上帝大自然永不褪色的美景，每一步都回想起他对他的子民所行的奇妙之事，并唱着他古老仆人的诗篇。

我们可以在伯利恒跪拜在他的马槽前。这座犹大城镇是雅各埋葬他心爱的拉结之地，如今那里有一座白色的清真寺标记着她的坟墓；是路得因她的孝顺而得到奖赏之地，如今在收割者的田里仍能看到像她在波阿斯的田里那样拾穗的孩童；是他的祖先，那位诗人君王出生并从他父亲的羊群中被召到以色列宝座之地；是牧羊人如今仍像那个庄严的夜晚一样看守羊群之地，当时天使天兵以“荣耀归于神，平安归于地上他所喜悦的人”的天上赞美诗，震撼了他们的心灵；是来自遥远东方、以未来几代外邦归信者名义献上祭品的圣贤之地；是基督教感恩之心建造了基督教最古老教堂——“圣诞教堂”——之地，并在“圣墓穴”的坚硬岩石上，用银字刻下了简单而意义深远的铭文：“Hic de Virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est。”（意为：耶稣基督在此由童贞女马利亚而生。）当所有周围的环境都与《圣经》叙述相符时，传统的圣诞石窟是否就是那个确切的地点，就显得微不足道了——尽管据说早在二世纪中叶，它就被指认是那个地方。

我们伴随他从伯利恒到拿撒勒，进行了三天的旅程。拿撒勒是他真正的家，他在那里度过了三十年默默无闻的岁月，为他的公开事工做着准备。除了他圣洁的父母之外，他的神圣身份未被邻居，甚至家人所知晓。拿撒勒至今仍在，是一个僻静但位置迷人的山村，街道狭窄、弯曲而肮脏，原始的石屋里人、驴和骆驼挤在一起。村子周围是仙人掌篱笆和结满葡萄、橄榄、无花果和石榴的肥沃花园。与现代巴勒斯坦的悲惨村庄相比，它以相对的勤劳、节俭和女性的美丽而著称。那座永不干涸的“圣母喷泉”至今仍在，靠近希腊报喜教堂。耶稣一定曾经常陪同他的母亲去那里取每日所需的水，那里也是傍晚妇女和少女们头顶水罐，额头挂着一排银币，优雅地聚会的场所。在村庄背后，那座芬芳着石楠和百里香的山丘依然矗立。他可能经常从那里向东眺望，看到约拿单殉道的基利波山，看到优雅的圆锥形他泊山——巴勒斯坦的利吉山——向北望去，是高耸的黑门山——巴勒斯坦的勃朗峰——向南望去，是肥沃的耶斯列平原——以色列的经典战场——向西望去，是迦密山脊，推罗和西顿的海岸以及蔚蓝的地中海——他和平福音通往人类未来的高速公路。在那里，他可以沉浸在关于大卫和约拿单、以利亚和以利沙的丰富记忆中，并为他的智慧教导收集美丽的意象。我们可以一笑置之那些愚蠢的迷信，这些迷信指着拉丁报喜教堂下的圣母马利亚的厨房，她接受天使信息的悬柱，约瑟和耶稣的木匠铺，他在那里宣讲“主悦纳人的禧年”的会堂，他与门徒共进晚餐的石桌，两英里外的跳崖山，以及马利亚的住宅被天使从空中移至意大利洛雷托的巨大怪诞传说！这些都是幼稚的寓言，与福音书的谦逊沉默形成鲜明对比，并被希腊和拉丁修士的相互竞争的传说所抵消。然而，大自然的美丽依然如故，就像耶稣曾看到并用他无与伦比的寓言所诠释的那样，这些寓言从自然指向自然之神，从有形的符号指向永恒的真理。

耶稣在流速湍急的约旦河中受洗，正式开始了他的公开事工。这条河连接着旧约和新约。这个传统的地点，位于耶利哥以北几英里处，至今仍有来自世界各地的数千名基督徒朝圣者在复活节期间前来参观，重现了约翰施洗时，人们“从耶路撒冷、犹太全地和约旦河一带地方”前来认罪并接受他悔改水洗的场面。

雅各井的废墟至今仍标记着耶稣因旅途劳累而坐下的地点，但他的怜悯工作并未停止。他在那里向一个贫穷的撒马利亚妇人打开了生命活水的井，并教导她真正的属灵敬拜。周围的风景，基利心山和以巴路山，示剑镇，以及田里发白待收割的庄稼，都阐明和证实了《约翰福音》第四章的叙述；而拿布路斯（现代的示剑）的撒马利亚人遗族，仍然延续着按照摩西规定献逾越节祭的记忆，以及他们对犹太人根深蒂固的仇恨。

我们向北前往加利利，耶稣在那里度过了他公开事工中最受欢迎的时期，并向惊奇的众人说了许多他永垂不朽的智慧和爱的话语。这片省份曾经密布森林，有耕地、各种气候的植物和树木，繁荣的村庄和勤劳的人口。弥赛亚的被拒绝和穆斯林的入侵早已将那个自然乐园变成了荒凉的旷野，但却无法抹去那些神圣的记忆和对福音历史的诠释。那里有湖，湖水清澈蔚蓝，曾经船只穿梭于两岸之间，并曾是罗马人与犹太人之间的一场海战的战场，如今完全被遗弃，但仍然盛产鱼类，并会突然遭遇猛烈的风暴，就像耶稣曾命令它们平息的那一场；那里有山丘，他曾从那里宣告了《山上宝训》，这是他王国的《大宪章》，他也常常退到那里去祷告；在西岸，有革尼撒勒平原，那里如今仍然因繁茂的荆棘、蒺藜和鲜红的木兰花而展现其天然的肥沃。那里有肮脏的提比哩亚城，是希律·安提帕所建，犹太拉比们在那里仍然一丝不苟地钻研《圣经》的字句，却找不到其中的基督；几间破旧的穆斯林茅屋，被称为“抹大拉”，仍然标志着抹大拉的马利亚的出生地，她悔改的泪水和复活的喜乐是基督教的宝贵遗产。虽然“他行了许多异能”的迦百农、伯赛大和哥拉汛等城市已从地球表面完全消失，甚至它们的遗址在学者中都存在争议，从而逐字验证了人子那可怕的预言，但特勒胡姆和克拉泽的废墟仍以其雄辩的证词，见证了上帝对那些被忽视的特权的审判。在特勒胡姆，那些破碎的柱子和楣石，以及一个盛吗哪的罐子，可能就是那位善良的罗马百夫长为迦百农人民所建造的会堂的遗迹，耶稣曾在此会堂中发表了他关于来自天上生命之粮的奇妙演讲。

凯撒利亚·腓立比，过去和现在都被称为巴尼亚斯（或帕尼亚斯，源于异教神潘的神殿），位于黑门山脚下，标志着圣地和我们主旅程的北端，以及犹太人与外邦人之间的分界线。这片瑞士般的风景，是巴勒斯坦最美丽的，可以清楚地看到约旦河清新的涌泉，脚下是坐落在岩石宝座上的叙利亚雪顶山峦之王。这似乎为彼得的基本告白和基督关于他的普世教会将建立在他永恒神性的坚不可摧的磐石上的预言增添了额外的力量。

我们主尘世生命最后的场景和他天上生命的开始，都发生在耶路撒冷及其附近。那里的每一个地方都让人想起在这个世界上发生过或可能发生的最重要的事件。耶路撒冷曾多次被围攻和摧毁，又多次“在自己的废墟上”重建，但它已经不再是希律时代的耶路撒冷了，那座城被埋在几个世纪的瓦砾和污垢之下，深达数英尺；甚至各各他的遗址也存在争议，迷信严重地扭曲和掩盖了其历史联系。“他不在那里，他已经复活了。”当下的耶路撒冷与它往日的荣耀以及与西方城市熙熙攘攘的生活形成对比，是世界上最令人伤感的景象；然而，有如此多的神圣记忆聚集于此，并熏染着这里的空气，甚至罗马也必须将它的荣光让给这座见证了耶稣受难和复活的城市。希律在摩利亚山上建造的圣殿，曾经是来自世界各地的虔诚犹太人的聚集地，并被征服者们贪婪的黄金白银财宝所充实，现在已经完全消失了，“没有一块石头留在另一块石头上”，这正是基督预言的字面实现；但圣殿区周围所罗门建筑的巨大地基仍然带有腓尼基工匠的标记；“哭墙”被犹太人的泪水浸湿，他们每周五都聚集在那里，为他们祖先的罪和不幸哀悼；如果我们从橄榄山上俯瞰摩利亚山和穆斯林的圆顶清真寺，这座城市即使在今天，也呈现出世界上最宏伟、也最深刻动人的景象之一。耶稣在逾越节后的那个庄严夜晚所走过的汲沦溪，以及客西马尼园，都还存在，园中的橄榄古树和关于耶稣痛苦的记忆仍在。耶稣从橄榄山升天，在他受难前最后的几个夜晚，这里曾是他和平与圣洁友谊的家。站在那座山上，视野壮丽，或者站在从耶利哥和伯大尼来的路口，俯瞰摩利亚山和圣城，我们完全能理解救主为何哭泣并感叹道：“耶路撒冷啊，耶路撒冷啊，你常杀害先知，又用石头打死那奉差遣到你这里来的人！我多次愿意聚集你的儿女，好像母鸡把小鸡聚集在翅膀底下，只是你们不愿意！看哪，你们的家成为荒场，留给你们！”

因此，这片土地和这部书相互阐明和证实。这部书在文明世界中仍然充满生命力并无处不在；这片土地却在“难以言喻”的土耳其人的无法改革的专制统治下呻吟，这种统治就像来自沙漠的西洛克风一样吹拂。巴勒斯坦正处于上帝的咒诅之下。它充其量是一个可敬的废墟，“带着一切衰败的恳求之美”，但并非没有在上帝美好的时间里得到未来复活的希望。然而，正是在它的荒凉中，它为《圣经》的真理提供了证据。它是一部刻在岩石上的“第五本福音书”。

人民

有没有比犹太人更好的基督教论据呢？在历史上，有没有比这个强烈而不可改变的闪族民族性及其同样强烈的宗教性，更明显、更顽固的事实呢？它不正是由在沙漠中燃烧却不被吞灭的荆棘所象征吗？尼布甲尼撒、安提阿古·伊壁法尼、提图斯、哈德良都曾施展他们的专制权力来消灭犹太人；哈德良的法令禁止了割礼和他们宗教的一切礼仪；基督教统治者的不宽容也曾对他们进行了几个世纪的报复性残酷，仿佛每个犹太人都要对耶稣受难的罪行负个人责任。然而，看哪，这个民族仍然像以往一样坚韧地活着，民族特性未变也无法改变，在基督教世界中无处不在地行使着自己的权力。在他们年迈之时，它仍然能产生在商业、政治和文学界具有深远影响的杰出人物；我们只需回想一下斯宾诺莎、罗斯柴尔德、迪斯雷利、门德尔松、海涅、尼安德等人的名字。如果我们阅读帝国罗马的历史学家和讽刺家们，关于居住在台伯河对岸肮脏街区的犹太人的描述，我们会惊奇地发现这个民族与他们在现代罗马、法兰克福和纽约的贫民窟后裔的身份认同。那时，他们像现在一样，激起了世界混合着蔑视和惊奇的感情；他们那时也像现在一样，因着智力上的美和明显的丑陋、悲惨的贫困和王侯般的财富之间的对比而引人注目；他们喜欢洋葱和大蒜，并贩卖旧衣服、碎玻璃和硫磺火柴，但懂得如何从贫困和肮脏中崛起，获得财富和影响力；他们是严格的一神论者和一丝不苟的律法主义者，会滤出蚊子却吞下骆驼；他们那时也像现在一样，在家庭关系中保持着节制、清醒、勤劳、井然有序和充满爱意，并关心他们孩子的宗教教育。那时，他们中的大多数人像现在一样，是雅各这个“篡位者”的肉身后裔，只有一小部分是亚伯拉罕这个上帝的朋友和信实之父的属灵儿女。正是从这个有天赋的民族中，在耶稣时代和此后，涌现出了基督教最苦毒的敌人和最热心的朋友。

耶稣在那个独特的民族中度过了他的尘世生活，他是犹太人中的犹太人，然而，在最高的意义上，他是人子，是第二亚当，是整个人类家庭的代表性元首和新造主。在三十年的隐居和预备中，他隐藏了他的神圣荣耀，并克制了他自己行善的愿望，默默地等待着，直到沉寂了几个世纪的预言之声在犹大旷野和约旦河岸边宣告上帝之国的来临，并以悔改的呼召唤醒了人们的良心。然后，在三年的时间里，他自由地与他的同胞们来往。他偶尔也会遇到并治愈外邦人，他们在加利利人数众多；他赞扬他们的信心，说他在以色列中从未见过如此大的信心，并预言将有许多人从东、从西而来，与亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各一同在天国里坐席，而本来的天国之子反倒被赶到外边的黑暗里。他曾与一个撒马利亚妇人交谈，这令他的门徒感到惊讶，论及最崇高的主题，并以树立一个好撒马利亚人为榜样来谴责犹太人的民族偏见。正是在他被钉十字架前不久，当一些“希腊人”来访时，他发表了关于他的十字架将对全人类产生普世吸引力的非凡预言。但这些都是例外。在复活之前，他的使命是为以色列迷失的羊群。

他在人群中行走时，被称为拉比（意为“我的主”）或教师，通常人们也用这个称呼来称呼他。拉比是这个民族的知识和道德领袖，他们是神学家、律师和传道人，是律法的诠释者，是良心的看守者，是日常生活和行为的规范者。他们与摩西和先知们归为一类，并要求得到同等的尊重。他们的地位高于祭司，因为祭司的地位是源于出身的偶然，而非个人功绩。他们觊觎会堂和宴席上的首座；他们喜欢在市场里被人问安，并被人称呼“拉比，拉比”。因此，我们主警告说：“你们不要受拉比的称呼，因为只有一位是你们的夫子，就是基督；而你们都是弟兄。”他们曾在圣殿、会堂和学堂（Bethhamidrash）里教导，通过提问和回答关于律法复杂问题的方式，引导坐在他们脚下的学生们进入犹太教义的精微之处。他们积累了口传的传统，这些传统后来被编入《塔木德》，成为这个犹太智慧和愚蠢的巨大仓库。他们通常无偿地执行公务。他们的生计来自于一门光荣的手艺或学生的自愿捐赠，或者他们嫁入富裕家庭。拉比希勒尔曾警告不要从“冠冕”（律法）中牟利，但也反对过度劳作，他说：“那些过度从事贸易的人，将无法变得有智慧。”在《便西拉智训》（约公元前 200 年写成）中，手艺被认为是与学生和教师的职业不相容的，但在基督时代，主流观点更倾向于将智力劳动和体力劳动结合起来，认为这有益于健康和品格。“喜爱体力劳动”，是希勒尔的一位老师舍马雅的座右铭。拉比耶胡达说：“不教儿子一门手艺的人，就好比教他当强盗一样。”《塔木德》说：“没有任何手艺可以被舍弃；但那些父母为他们树立了更优秀手艺榜样的人是幸福的。”

耶稣自己不仅是木匠的儿子，而且在他年轻时，他也曾从事过这门手艺。当他开始公开事工时，他对上帝之家的热心占据了他所有的时间和精力，而他朴素的需求也得到了几位来自加利利的感恩门徒的充分供应，以至于还有剩余可以惠及穷人。圣保罗学会了搭帐篷的手艺，这与他的家乡基利家很相配，即使作为使徒，他也以此为生，这样他就可以减轻他会众的负担，并保持高贵的独立性。

耶稣利用了会堂和圣殿中常见的公共教导场所，但他也曾在户外，在山上、在海边，以及在人们聚集听他讲道的地方传讲。“我向来是明明的对世人说话；我常在会堂和殿里，就是犹太人聚集的地方，教训人；我暗地里并没有说什么。”保罗在他的传教旅程中，只要有机会，也同样在会堂里教导。常见的教导方式是通过辩论、提问和回答关于律法难题的问题，以及通过寓言和格言，这些都容易记在心里；拉比坐在椅子上，学生们则站在或坐在地板上，在他们的脚下。犹太人普遍拥有关于上帝律法的知识，并将其视为最重要的财富。他们记住诫命比记住自己的名字还要好。约瑟夫自夸，说他十四岁时就对律法有了如此精确的知识，以至于大祭司和耶路撒冷的首领都向他请教。每个城镇都任命了教师，孩子们在六七岁时就开始学习阅读，但写作可能是一项罕见的技能。

会堂是地方性的，圣殿是全国性的宗教和社会生活中心；前者在每周的安息日（以及周一和周四），后者在逾越节和其他年度节日时。每个城镇都有一个会堂，大城市有很多，特别是亚历山大和耶路撒冷。敬拜非常简单：包括祷告、歌唱、用希伯来语朗读律法和先知书中的章节，然后用当地的亚兰语进行评注和讲道。特别是耶路撒冷之外的地方，有一种特定的民主式预言自由。任何成年的犹太人都可以应会堂管理者的邀请，朗读《圣经》课文并发表评论。正是这种习俗，为耶稣开始了公开事工提供了最自然的方式。当他从受洗之地回到拿撒勒时，“他来到自己长大的地方，照着他平常的规矩，在安息日进了会堂，站起来要念《圣经》。有人把先知以赛亚的书卷交给他，他就打开，找到一处写着：（赛 61:1, 2）‘主的灵在我身上，因为他用膏膏我，叫我传福音给贫穷的人；差遣我报告：被掳的得释放，瞎眼的得看见，叫那受压制的得自由，报告主悦纳人的禧年。’于是他把书卷卷起来，交给侍役，就坐下。会堂里的人都定睛看他。他就对他们说：‘今天这经应验在你们耳中了。’众人也都称赞他，并希奇他口中所出的恩言；又说：‘这不是约瑟的儿子吗？’”

在重大的节日里，他从十二岁起就造访这个民族的首都，在那里，犹太宗教展现了它所有的辉煌和吸引力。满载食物和丰富祭品的骆驼和驴子商队，从南、北、东、西而来，前往圣城，“全地所喜悦的”；这些年度朝圣，唱着美丽的《朝圣诗篇》（诗 120 至 134 篇），极大地有助于维护和促进共同的信仰，就像穆斯林前往麦加的朝圣维持了伊斯兰教的生命力一样。我们可以大大减少约瑟夫那庞大的数字，他曾在一个逾越节期间，估算耶路撒冷的陌生人和居民人数为 270 万，被宰杀的羔羊数量为 256,500 只，但事实仍然是，这是一个规模庞大而庄严的场合。即使在它衰落的今天，耶路撒冷（像其他东方城市一样）在复活节期间也呈现出引人注目的如画景象，来自遥远西方的基督徒朝圣者与色彩斑斓的阿拉伯人、土耳其人、希腊人、拉丁人、西班牙和波兰犹太人混杂在一起，挤满了圣墓教堂，拥挤不堪。当祭司们（约瑟夫估计有 2 万人）穿着刺绣的束腰外衣、精细的亚麻腰带、华丽的头巾，大祭司们穿着蓝色、紫色和朱红色的以弗得、胸牌和冠冕，利未人戴着尖尖的帽子，法利赛人佩戴着宽大的经文盒和流苏，爱色尼人穿着白色的长袍，带着先知般的风度，骄傲的罗马士兵、东方气息浓厚的希律朝廷人士，与穿着破烂的乞丐和残疾人形成对比时，这个世界性的场面会是多么宏伟和炫目啊！那无数的朝圣者，来自帝国各地的犹太人和归信者，“帕提亚人、玛代人、以拦人，以及住在美索不达米亚、犹太、加帕多家、本都、亚细亚、弗吕家、旁非利亚、埃及的人，并靠近古利奈的利比亚一带地方的人，从罗马来的客旅，无论是犹太人，是归信者，还有克里特人、阿拉伯人”，都穿着他们的民族服装，说着巴别塔般的语言，涌过街道，涌向摩利亚山，那里“光荣的圣殿矗立着，从远处看，像一座雪花石膏山，顶上闪烁着金色的尖塔”，在那里，在第一个月的第十四天，数以万计的逾越节羔羊的祭祀烟柱升起，以历史的方式纪念从为奴之地的伟大解救，并以预表的方式预示着从罪和死亡的奴役中更大的救赎。

在局外人看来，当时的犹太人是地球上最虔诚的人，在某种意义上，这是真的。没有任何一个民族像他们那样，如此被上帝的成文律法所统治；没有任何一个民族像他们那样，如此仔细和一丝不苟地研读他们的圣书，并对他们的祭司和教师怀有更大的敬意。这个民族的领袖们以恐惧和蔑视的眼光看待不洁净、未受割礼的外邦人，并使人民更加坚定他们的属灵骄傲和自负。难怪罗马人指责犹太人怀有“人类的憎恶”（odium generis humani）。

然而，归根结底，这种强烈的宗教性只是真正宗教的影子。它更像一具正在祷告的尸体，而不是一个活生生的身体。唉！基督教会在某些时代和地区也呈现出类似的悲哀景象，即有敬虔的虚假形式却没有敬虔的能力。拉比们的学识和虔诚与上帝活的道之间的关系，就像诡辩的经院主义与《圣经》神学，以及耶稣会的诡辩术与基督教伦理之间的关系一样。拉比们将他们所有的精力都花在“围篱”律法上，以使其无法接近。他们将律法分析致死。他们用如此多吹毛求疵的区分和精炼来包围律法，以至于人们只见树木不见森林，只见瓦片不见屋顶，将外壳误认为是果仁。因此，他们用人的传统使上帝的道归于无效。奴性的形式主义和机械的仪式主义取代了属灵的虔诚，炫耀的伪善取代了圣洁的品格，吹毛求疵的诡辩术取代了真正的道德，致人死命的字句取代了赐人生命的灵，而上帝的殿也被变成了买卖人的贼窝。

将属灵的变质为属肉的，将内在的变质为外在的这种亵渎和曲解，甚至侵入了以色列宗教的至圣所——弥赛亚的应许和盼望。这些应许和盼望如同金线般，从伊甸园失乐园后的“原始福音”，一直贯穿到施洗约翰指向“上帝的羔羊”的声音。人们将属灵弥赛亚将要踩碎蛇头并从罪的束缚中救赎以色列的观念，转变为一种政治性的拯救者，他将重建耶路撒冷的大卫王座，并从这个中心统治外邦人直到地极。当时犹太人无法将他们所称的“大卫的子孙”弥赛亚，与大卫的刀、权杖和王冠分开。甚至连使徒们也受到这种错误观念的影响，希望在那场伟大的变革中获得首要的尊荣地位；因此，当主对他们谈及他即将到来的受难和死亡时，他们无法理解。

正如福音书所阐述的，当时人们对弥赛亚期望的看法，完全被之前的和同时代的犹太文献所证实，例如《西比拉书》（约公元前 140 年）、非凡的《以诺书》（日期不确定，可能在公元前 130-30 年）、《所罗门诗篇》（公元前 63-48 年）、《摩西升天记》、《斐罗》和《约瑟夫斯》、《巴录启示录》以及《以斯拉四书》。在所有这些著作中，弥赛亚王国，或者说上帝的国度，都被描绘成犹太人的一个属世乐园，一个以耶路撒冷为首都的属世王国。正是这种对假弥赛亚的流行崇拜，撒但曾在旷野中试探耶稣，当时它将世上的万国都指给他看。撒但深知，如果它能使他转变为这种属肉的信仰，并引诱他滥用他的神迹能力来满足自私的欲望、虚荣的炫耀和属世的野心，那么它就会最有效地挫败救赎计划。同样，这种政治野心也是反抗罗马枷锁的那场叛乱的强大动力，那场叛乱最终导致了耶路撒冷的毁灭，并在巴尔·科赫巴的叛乱中再次复苏，但最终以同样的灾难告终。

这就是基督时代的犹太宗教。他是以色列中唯一一个能看透虚伪面具，直达腐朽之心的教师。那些伟大的拉比，无论是希勒尔、沙玛、还是迦玛列，都没有尝试，甚至没有构想过一次宗教改革；相反，他们将传统层层叠加，堆积了多达十二大卷、2947 页的《塔木德》垃圾，这代表着犹太教反基督的石化过程；而四本福音书却使人类获得了新生，并至今仍是文明世界的生命和光。

耶稣，虽然在当时犹太宗教的外在形式内活动，但他远远超越了它，并启示了一个全新的思想世界。他也尊崇上帝的律法，但通过展开它最深层的属灵意义，并在教导和榜样中完全成就了它。他自己作为一名拉比，却以直接来自上帝的权威教导，而不像文士那样。他如何谴责那些坐在摩西位子上的伪君子，那些瞎眼人的瞎眼领路人！他们将沉重的负担加在人们的肩上，却连一根指头也不肯动；他们向人关闭天国，自己却不进去；他们将薄荷、茴香、芹菜献上十分之一，却忽略了律法中更重要的事，就是公义、怜悯和信实；他们滤出蚊子，却吞下骆驼；他们就像粉饰过的坟墓，外面好看，里面却满了死人的骨头和一切的污秽。但是，当他这样刺痛那些领袖的骄傲时，他也鼓励和提升了谦卑和卑微的人。他祝福小孩子，他鼓励穷人，他邀请劳苦的人，他喂饱饥饿的人，他医治病人，他使税吏和罪人悔改，并在上帝永恒的爱中，为建立一个新社会和新人类奠定了坚实而深厚的基础。当门徒问他：“天国里谁是最大的？”时，耶稣将一个小孩叫来，让他站在他们中间，说：“我实在告诉你们，你们若不回转，变成小孩子的样式，绝不能进天国。所以，凡自己谦卑像这小孩子的，他在天国里就是最大的。凡为我的名，接待一个像这小孩子的，就是接待我。”这是耶稣生命中最崇高、也最可爱的时刻之一。还有另一个时刻，他感谢他天父，将天国的事向婴孩显明，却向聪明通达人藏起来，并邀请所有劳苦担重担的人到他这里来，他就要使他们得安息。

他从一开始就知道他是上帝的弥赛亚和以色列的王。这种意识在他受洗时达到了成熟，那时他领受了无限量的圣灵。他坚定不移地坚持这个信念，即使在他事业看似失败的黑暗时刻，犹大出卖了他，彼得，那个认信他的磐石使徒，否认了他，所有人都离弃了他。他在犹太公会的审判台前庄严地确认了自己的弥赛亚身份；他向罗马帝国的代表保证，他是一个王，尽管他的国不属于这个世界。当他被挂在十字架上时，他将国度中的一个位置赐给了那个悔改的强盗。但在那之前，在他最受欢迎的日子里，他小心翼翼地避免任何可能鼓励普遍存在的政治弥赛亚观念和人民起义的公开宣示和行动。他为自己选择了弥赛亚头衔中最谦卑的一个，这个头衔代表了他对我们共同命运的屈尊，同时也意味着他作为人类家庭代表性元首的独特地位，他是理想的、完美的、普世的、原型的人。他习惯性地称自己为“人子”，他“没有枕头的地方”，他“来不是要受人的服事，乃是要服事人，并且要舍命作多人的赎价”，他“有赦罪的权柄”，他“来是要寻找和拯救失丧的人”。当彼得在凯撒利亚·腓立比做出那伟大的认信时，基督接受了，但立刻警告他即将到来的受难和死亡，这让门徒惊恐地退缩了。他以平静和崇高的坚毅，怀着对他被钉十字架、以及第三天荣耀复活的确定期待，踏上了他最后一次去耶路撒冷的旅程，那里“常杀害先知”，并把他钉在十字架上，当作一个假弥赛亚和亵渎者。但在上帝无限的智慧和怜悯中，历史上最大的罪行，转变成了对人类最大的祝福。

因此，我们必须得出结论：基督的生平和工作，虽然与他那个时代和民族的处境和需求完美契合，并从他所处的环境中得到阐明和证实，但无法从任何同时代或之前的知识或道德资源中得到解释。他没有从人类教师那里学到任何东西。他的智慧不属于这个世界。他不需要像先知和使徒那样获得异象和启示。他直接从他在天上的伟大父而来，当他谈到天时，他谈论的是他熟悉的家。他从住在自己里面的上帝的丰盛中说话。他的话语由他的行为所证实。榜样胜于教导。最智慧的格言，除非在一个活生生的人身上化为实体，否则仍然毫无力量。是生命，才是人类的光。在教义的纯洁性和品格的圣洁性上，耶稣以完美的和谐结合，独一无二，无人能及。他向他那个时代和所有后来的时代注入了来自天堂的新生命。他是新的道德创造的作者。

耶稣与希勒尔。——基督在他那个时代和民族的人们之上的无限超然地位，以及他与法利赛人和文士之间的致命冲突是如此明显，以至于将他与希勒尔或任何其他拉比进行比较，似乎是荒谬可笑的。然而，一些现代犹太拉比，如盖革（Geiger）、格拉茨（Grätz）、弗里德兰德（Friedlander）等人，却这样做了。他们大胆地宣称——没有任何历史证据——说耶稣是一名法利赛人，是希勒尔的学生，并从他那里获得了最高的道德原则。他们用这种言不由衷的赞美，贬低他的独创性。亚伯拉罕·盖革（卒于 1874 年）在他的《犹太教及其历史》（Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte，布雷斯劳，第 2 版，1865 年，第 1 卷，第 117 页）中说：“耶稣是一个犹太人，一个带有加利利色彩的法利赛人。他是一个分享了那个时代希望的人，并相信这些希望在他身上得到了实现。他绝没有表达一个新的思想，也没有打破民族的界限……他丝毫没有废除犹太教的东西；他是一个法利赛人，也走在希勒尔的道路上。”拉比 M. H. 弗里德兰德博士在他的《塔纳伊特和阿摩拉伊特时代的历史图片。对塔木德历史的贡献》（Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaite n und Amoräer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Talmuds，布伦，1879 年，第 32 页）中重复了这一观点：“耶稣，或耶书，是来自拿撒勒的一位木匠约瑟的儿子。他母亲名叫米利暗或马利亚。即使是作为保守天主教徒[原文如此！]和杰出学者而闻名的Ewald，也称他为‘约瑟的儿子耶稣’……尽管耶稣的学识并不渊博，因为加利利人处于较低的文化水平，但他以高尚的灵魂、温和的性情和善良的心肠而脱颖而出。希勒尔一世似乎是他的榜样和楷模；因为希勒尔的原则：‘己所不欲，勿施于人’，是他的教导的基本原则。”雷南（Renan）在他的《耶稣传》（Vie de Jésus，第三章，第 35 页）中也做了类似的断言，但有相当大的限制：“以他谦卑地忍受贫困，以他性格的温柔，以他对伪君子和祭司的反对，希勒尔是耶稣真正的老师，如果我们可以谈论老师的话，当涉及到如此高的独创性时。”这个比较已经被像德利茨施（Delitzsch）博士这样的杰出学者，在他的重要小册子《耶稣与希勒尔》（Jesus und Hillel，埃尔朗根，修订第 3 版，1879 年，40 页）中，以及Ewald，第 5 卷，第 12-48 页（《希勒尔的学派及其对手》）、凯姆（Keim）第 1 卷，第 268-272 页；许雷尔（Schürer），第 456 页；以及法勒（Farrar）的《基督生平》第 2 卷，第 453-460 页，都有效地驳斥了。所有这些作家都得出了耶稣完全独立和独创的相同结论。然而，检视此案中的事实仍然是很有趣的。

希勒尔和沙玛是犹太拉比中最杰出的人物。他们是两个对立的拉比神学学派的同时代创始人（就像托马斯·阿奎那和邓斯·司各脱是两个经院神学学派的创始人一样）。奇怪的是，约瑟夫斯没有提及他们，除非他以希腊化的名字萨梅亚斯（Sameas）和波利翁（Pollion）来指代他们；但这些名字与希勒尔和沙玛两位著名的法利赛人和教师舍马雅（Shemaja）和阿布塔利翁（Abtalion）更为吻合；此外，他指定萨梅亚斯是波利翁的弟子。（参 Ewald，第 5 卷，第 22-26 页；Schürer，第 455 页）。《塔木德》的传统掩盖了他们的历史，并用许多寓言来装饰它。

希勒尔一世或希勒尔大帝是大卫王室的后裔，出生于巴比伦。他贫困地迁居耶路撒冷，并于公元 10 年左右去世。据说他像摩西一样活了 120 岁，40 年没有学习，40 年作为学生，40 年作为教师。他是圣经学者迦玛列的祖父，在他的家族中，犹太公会的主席职位世袭了几代。由于他对知识的热切追求，以及他纯洁、温柔和和蔼可亲的品格，他获得了最高的声誉。据说他懂得所有语言，甚至包括山、丘、谷、树、野兽和家畜、以及鬼魔的未知语言。他被称为“温和者，圣洁者，以斯拉的学者”。有一句谚语：“人应该总是像希勒尔一样温顺，而不像沙玛一样脾气暴躁。”他与拉比沙玛的区别在于，他对律法的解释更温和，但在某些问题上，例如在一个安息日下的蛋是否正确的问题上，他采取了更严格的观点。一本《塔木德》小册子就以这个著名的争论命名为《蛋》（Beza, The Egg）。这与说“安息日是为人设立的，人不是为安息日设立的；所以，人子也是安息日的主”的基督相距何其遥远！

许多智慧的格言，虽然部分晦涩难懂且解释可疑，但在《庇尔基·亚沃特篇》（Pirke Aboth）中被归于希勒尔名下（该篇被收录在《米示拿》中，并在第一章中列举了从摩西到耶路撒冷被毁的律法传统支柱）。以下是其中最好的：

“做亚伦的门徒，爱和平、制造和平；爱人，并将他们引向律法。”

“凡滥用美名（或，贪图显赫自己的名声）的，必毁灭它。”

“凡不增加知识的，必减少它。”

“不要与会众分离，也不要在你临终之日之前对自己有信心。”

“如果我不关心我的灵魂，谁会为我关心呢？如果我只关心我自己的灵魂，我算什么？如果不是现在，又是什么时候呢？”

“不要论断你的邻舍，除非你处在他的处境中。”

“在没有人的地方，你要作人。”

然而，他傲慢的法利赛主义在这句话中清晰可见：“没有受过教育的人，不容易避免犯罪；普通人不会虔诚。”基督在犹太公会的敌人也说了同样的话（约 7:49）：“这不明白律法的百姓是被咒诅的。”他的一些教导也具有可疑的道德性，例如他关于根据《申命记》24:1 中一个模糊的表达，一个男人可以休妻，“如果她把他的饭做得很糟糕”。然而，现代拉比们对此进行了软化，将其解释为：“如果她给他的家庭带来不好的名声。”

有一次，一个外邦人来到拉比沙玛那里，并承诺如果他能在他单腿站立时教导他全部律法，他就会归信。沙玛生气了，用棍子把他赶走了。这个外邦人带着同样的要求去找拉比希勒尔，希勒尔从不发脾气，礼貌地接待了他，并在他单腿站立时，给了他一个有效的回答：

“己所不欲，勿施于人。这就是全部律法；其余的都是注解：去吧，照着去做。”（参 Delitzsch，第 17 页；Ewald，第 5 卷，第 31 页，另参第 4 卷，第 270 页）。

这是希勒尔最智慧的话，也是他与耶稣进行比较的主要基础。但是，

  1. 这只是福音书积极教训的否定性表达，“你要爱邻舍如同自己”，以及黄金法则：“所以，无论何事，你们愿意人怎样待你们，你们也要怎样待他们”（太 7:12；路 6:31）。不作任何伤害和行善之间有很大的区别。前者与自私和任何不伤害邻舍的罪是相容的。救主通过将上帝的仁慈（太 7:11）作为义务的指导，指示我们要对邻舍行一切我们能行的善，而他自己也通过为罪人牺牲生命，树立了舍己之爱的最高榜样。
  2. 它与至高无上爱上帝的更大律法脱节了，没有后者，对邻舍的真爱是不可能的。“在这两条诫命上，”结合且不可分割，“挂着律法和先知的一切道理”（太 22:37-40）。
  3. 类似的格言在希勒尔之前很久就存在，不仅在《五经》和《多比传》4:15 中（ὅ μισεῖς μηδενὶ ποιήσῃς，“你所憎恶的，不要施加于任何人”），而且在实质上甚至存在于异教徒中（孔子、佛陀、希罗多德、伊索克拉底、塞内卡、昆提利安），但总是以否定形式，或针对特定的案例或群体；例如，伊索克拉底，《致德莫尼库斯》（Ad Demonic）第四章：“你对你的父母要像你祈祷你的孩子将来对你一样；” 以及同一作者在《致埃吉那》（In Aeginet）第二十三章中：“你对我要像你希望别人对待你一样做出判断。”参看马太福音 7:12 的韦斯泰因（Wetstein）注（《新约》，第 1 卷，第 341 页）。莱特福特（Lightfoot）、格罗蒂乌斯（Grotius）、韦斯泰因（Wetstein）、德语（Deutsch）、斯皮斯（Spiess）、拉梅奇（Ramage）等人从《塔木德》和经典著作中收集了大量与此及其他圣经格言相似的平行语录；但与《山上宝训》相比，它们又算得了什么呢？此外，si duo idem dicunt, non est idem. （意为：如果两个人说同样的话，那并不意味着是同样的东西。）至于拉比的平行语录，我们必须记住，它们直到二世纪才被写下来。而且，德利茨施说（《在迦百农的一天》，Ein Tag in Capernaum，第 137 页），“不少基督的话语，通过犹太基督徒传播，匿名或以假名重新出现在《塔木德》和《米示拿》中。”
  4. 任何数量的格言都不能构成一个有机的伦理体系，就像一堆大理石块不能构成一座宫殿或圣殿一样；而最好的伦理体系也无法产生圣洁的生活，没有圣洁的生活，它就毫无价值。

我们可以毫不犹豫地承认希勒尔是“所有法利赛人中最伟大和最好的人”（Ewald），但他远远逊于施洗约翰；将他与基督相比，完全是盲目或愚蠢的。Ewald 称这种比较是“完全颠倒的”（grundverkehrt，第 5 卷，第 48 页）。法勒评论说，希勒尔和耶稣之间的距离是“一个绝对无法衡量的距离，他的教导与耶稣教导的相似之处，就像萤火虫与太阳的相似之处”（第 2 卷，第 455 页）。德利茨施（第 23 页）说：“他们两者的根本倾向，就像天堂和大地一样遥远。希勒尔的是律法主义、诡辩术和民族局限的；耶稣的是普世的宗教、道德和人性的。希勒尔生活和行动在律法的外在形式中，而耶稣则生活在律法的精神中。”他甚至不是一个改革家，正如盖革和弗里德兰德所想的那样，因为他们所引用的证据只是解释上的小事，并不涉及任何新的原则或思想。

如果仅将耶稣视为一位人类教师，他的绝对独创性在于，“他的话语触动了所有时代所有人的心，并使世界的道德生活得到了再生”（法勒，第 2 卷，第 454 页）。但耶稣远不止是一位拉比，他超越了一切圣贤和圣徒，超越了一切改革家和慈善家；他是真正宗教的创始人，是先知、祭司和君王，是人类的新造主和救主，是建立一个与人类一样广阔、与永恒一样漫长的属灵国度的创始人。

§ 18. 伪经传统

我主言行的伪经记载，作为福音书中唯一可靠记录之外的补充，在此添加一些次要但有趣的注释。

一、伪经中主的言论

尽管福音书没有记录所有耶稣的言行（《约翰福音》20:30；21:25），但它们已包含我们所需知道的一切。由于福音书的早期创作和在教会中的普及，口头传统不可能成功地与之竞争。关于我主圣经之外的言论，仅是一些零散的片段，数量稀少，且除了一个例外，其余都无关紧要，或只是真实言语的变体。

这些言论已被收集在法布里修斯（Fabricius）的《新约伪经集》（Codex Apocr. Novi Testamenti）中，第一卷，第321-335页；格拉贝（Grabe）的《圣教父文集》（Spicilegium SS. Patrum），第二版，第一卷，第12页及之后，第326页及之后；科尔纳（Koerner）的《论基督未记载的言论》（De sermonibus Christi ἀγράφοις）（莱比锡，1776年）；鲁思（Routh）的《圣遗物》（Reliq. Sacrae），第一卷，第9-12页等；鲁道夫·霍夫曼（Rudolf Hofmann）的《耶稣生平根据伪经》（Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen）（莱比锡，1851年），第75节，第317-334页；本森（Bunsen）的《尼西亚前文选》（Anal. ante-Nic.），第一卷，第29页及之后；安格尔（Anger）的《福音书概要》（Synops. Evang.）（1852年）；韦斯科特（Westcott）的《福音研究导论》（Introd. to the Study of the Gospels），附录C（哈克特（Hackett）编辑的波士顿版，第446页及之后）；普拉姆普特雷（Plumptre）在埃利科特（Ellicott）的《英文读者注释本》（Com. for English Readers）中，第一卷，第xxxiii页；J.T.多德（J.T. Dodd）的《教父们归于我主的言论》（Sayings ascribed to our Lord by the Fathers）（1874年）；E.B.尼科尔森（E.B. Nicholson）的《希伯来人福音》（The Gospel according to the Hebrews）（伦敦，1879年），第143-162页。另可参考埃瓦尔德（Ewald）在其《圣经科学年鉴》（Jahrbücher der Bibl. Wissenschaft）第六卷，第40和54页及之后的论文，以及《基督历史》（Geschichte Christi），第288页。我们主要利用霍夫曼、韦斯科特、普拉姆普特雷和尼科尔森的合集。

(1) “施比受更为有福。”（It is more blessed to give than to receive.） 保罗在《使徒行传》20:35中引用了这句话。 可参考《路加福音》6:30, 31；以及罗马的革利免（Clement of Rome）在《致哥林多人书》中第2章的“ᾕδιον διδόντες ἢ λαμβάνοντες”（意为“施比受更快乐”）。 这句话无疑是真实的，充满了丰富的意义，并像一颗孤独的星星一样闪耀得更加灿烂。 它在上帝和基督的爱中具有最高的意义。 亚里士多德、塞涅卡和伊壁鸠鲁所说的类似句子，正如普鲁塔克所引用的那样，带有贵族式的傲慢，并被相反的异教徒自私自利格言所抵消：“施予者是愚蠢的，接受者是幸福的”。 莎士比亚可能在脑海中想到了这句话，当他让鲍西娅说出那些黄金般的词语时：

“怜悯的品质不受束缚，

它如柔和的雨从天而降

落在下面的土地上：它双重有福；

它祝福施予者，也祝福接受者；

它在最有权势的人身上最强大；它比

君王的王冠更适合他的王座。”

(2) “就在同一天，耶稣看见一个人在安息日劳作，祂对他说：‘人哪，如果你知道你所做的是什么，那么你是有福的；但如果你不知道，那么你是被咒诅的，是违背律法的。’”（O man, if thou knowest what thou doest, then art thou blessed; but if thou knowest not, then art thou accursed, and art a transgressor of the Law.） 这是《路加福音》6:4的增补，收录在贝撒抄本（Codex D. or Bezae）中，该抄本包含几处值得注意的增补。 词语“ἐπικατάρατος”（被咒诅的）在《约翰福音》7:49（公认文本）中被法利赛人用以指代不明白律法的百姓（另可参见《加拉太书》3:10, 13，引用自旧约）； “παραβάτης τοῦ νόμου”（违背律法的）则被保罗（《罗马书》2:25, 27；《加拉太书》2:18）和雅各（2:9, 11）使用。 普拉姆普特雷（Plumptre）认为这段叙述是真实的，并指出“它以一种奇妙的力量，区分了对一个仍被认为是具有约束力的律法有意识地违背，与宣告一个更高的律法来取代较低的律法之间的区别。”

(3) “但你们寻求（或，以祈使语气，‘你们要寻求’ ζητεῖτε）从微小增加，而不是从更大减少。”（But ye seek to increase from little, and from greater to be less.） 这是《马太福音》20:28在贝撒抄本（Codex D）中的增补。 韦斯科特（Westcott）认为这是一个真实的片段。 尼科尔森（Nicholson）加入了“不”（not），与库雷顿的叙利亚语译本和贝撒抄本D一致； 其他所有版本都省略了它。

(4) “你们要做忠实的兑换银钱的人，或，经得起考验的银行家（τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι）。”（Be ye trustworthy money-changers, or, proved bankers.） 即善于分辨真币和伪币的专家。 亚历山大的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）（多次引用）、奥利金（在《约翰福音》注释中）、优西比乌、塞浦路斯的埃皮法尼乌斯（Epiphanius）、亚历山大的西里尔（Cyril）和许多其他人也引用了这句话。 可参考《帖撒罗尼迦前书》5:21：“凡事察验，善美的要持守”；以及才干的比喻，《马太福音》25:27。 德利茨施（Delitzsch）和许多其他人一样，认为这句话是真实的，并赋予它这样的含义：用不那么有价值的换取更有价值的，看重神圣的钱币胜过普通的钱币，而最珍贵的是福音这颗珍珠。

(5) “上帝的儿子说，‘让我们抵制一切不义，并憎恶它。’”（The Son of God says,(?) ’Let us resist all iniquity, and hold it in abhorrence.’） 来自《巴拿巴书信》，第四章。 尽管这封书信被收录在《西奈抄本》中，但可能并非使徒巴拿巴的作品。 韦斯科特和普拉姆普特雷引用了拉丁语版本，该版本以“sicut dicit Filius Dei”开头。 但这似乎是“sicut decet filios Dei”（“正如上帝的儿子们所应做的”）的错误。 从希腊语原文（通过《西奈抄本》的发现而被公之于众）可以清楚地看出，原文是“ὡς πρέπει υἱοῖς θεοῦ”，并与前面的句子相连。

(6) “那些希望看见我，并抓住我王国的人，必须带着苦难和痛苦来接受我。”（They who wish to see me, and to lay hold on my kingdom, must receive me with affliction and suffering.） 来自《巴拿巴书信》，第七章，其中这些话以“祂如此说”（φησίν）开头。

(7) “那感到惊奇的人（ὁ θαυμάσας，带着敬畏信仰的惊奇）将要掌权，而那掌权的人将得到安息。”（He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall be made to rest.） 来自《希伯来人福音》，由亚历山大的革利免（《杂记》，Strom. II. 9, § 45）引用。

(8) “要以惊奇的眼光看待你面前的事物（θαῦμασον τὰ παρόντα）。”（Look with wonder at the things that are before thee.） 来自亚历山大的革利免（《杂记》，Strom. II. 9, § 45）。

(9) “我来是为了废除献祭，除非你们停止献祭，否则[上帝的]愤怒将不会停止临到你们。”（I came to abolish sacrifices, and unless ye cease from sacrificing, the wrath [of God] will not cease from you.） 来自伊便尼派的福音书，由埃皮法尼乌斯（Epiphanius）（《异端大全》，Haer. xxx. 16）引用。

(10) “求大事，小事将加给你们；求属天的事，属地的事将加给你们。”（Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you: ask heavenly and there shall be added unto you earthly things.） 由亚历山大的革利免（《杂记》，Strom. I. 24, § 154；可参考第四卷，第六章，§ 34）和奥利金（de Oratione, c. 2）引用，略有不同。

(11) “我找到你们是怎样的，我就要怎样审判你们。”（In the things wherein I find you, in them will I judge you.） 由殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）（《与特里丰对话录》，Dial. c. Tryph. c. 47）和亚历山大的革利免（《哪一位富人得救》，Quis dives, § 40）引用。 尼勒斯（Nilus）的说法略有不同：“主说，我找到你是怎样的，我就要审判你。”

(12) “那靠近我的，就靠近火；那远离我的，就远离国度。”（He who is nigh unto me is nigh unto the fire: he who is far from me is far from the kingdom.） 来自奥利金（《耶利米书注释》，Comm. in Jer. III. p. 778）和亚历山大的迪迪姆斯（Didymus）（《诗篇》88:8）。 伊格内修斯（Ignatius）（《致士每拿人书》，Ad Smyrn. c. 4）有一句类似的话，但不是作为引用：“靠近刀剑就是靠近上帝”（ἐγγὺς μαχαίρας ἐγγὺς θεοῦ）。

(13) “如果你们在小事上不忠心，谁会把大事交给你们呢？因为我对你们说，那在最小的事上忠心的，在许多事上也忠心。”（If ye kept not that which is little, who will give you that which is great? For I say unto you, he that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much.） 来自伪革利免的讲道（第八章）。 爱任纽（Irenaeus）（第二卷，34:3）也以类似的方式引用，可能来自记忆：“Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit nobis?”

(14) “要保持肉体纯洁，印记[可能指洗礼]没有污点，这样我们[你们]才能获得永生。”（Keep the flesh pure, and the seal [probably baptism] without stain that we [ye] may receive eternal life.） 来自伪革利免的讲道，第八章。

(15) 我主被撒罗米问及祂的国何时降临，以及祂所说的事何时成就时，回答道：“当二者合一，外面如同里面，男性与女性，既非男性也非女性时。”（When the two shall be one, and the outward as the inward, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.） 来自亚历山大的革利免，作为引自《埃及人福音》的引用（《杂记》，Strom. III. 13, § 92），以及伪革利免的讲道（第十二章）。

(16) “我为那些软弱的人而软弱，为那些饥饿的人而饥饿，为那些口渴的人而口渴。”（For those that are infirm was I infirm, and for those that hunger did I hunger, and for those that thirst did I thirst.） 来自奥利金（《马太福音注释》，in Matt. xiii. 2）。

(17) “你们永远不要快乐，除非你们看到你们的弟兄在爱中[同居]时。”（Never be ye joyful, except when ye have seen your brother [dwelling] in love.） 来自《希伯来福音书》，由哲罗姆（Jerome）引用（《以弗所书》in Eph. v. 3）。

(18) “摸我，看我，我不是没有身体的鬼魔[即灵魂]。”（Take hold, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon [i.e. spirit].） 来自伊格内修斯（《致士每拿人书》，Ad Symrn. c. 3）和哲罗姆，哲罗姆从拿撒勒福音书中引用了这句话（《著名人物论》，De Viris illustr. 16）。

(19) “善事必然会来，但那通过他而来的，是有福的；同样，恶事也必然会来，但那通过他而来的，有祸了。”（Good must needs come, but blessed is he through whom it cometh; in like manner evil must needs come, but woe to him through whom it cometh.） 来自《革利免讲道集》，第十二卷，第29节。

(20) “我的奥秘是为我，也是为了我家里的人。”（My mystery is for me, and for the sons of my house.） 来自亚历山大的革利免（《杂记》，Strom. V. 10, § 64）、《革利免讲道集》（第十九卷，第20节）和亚历山大的亚历山大（Alexander）（《致亚历山大书信》，Ep. ad Alex. c. 5）。

(21) “如果你不使你低下的事物高举，不使你弯曲的事物变直，你就不能进入我的国。”（If you do not make your low things high and your crooked things straight ye shall not enter into my kingdom.） 来自《腓力行传》（Acta Philippi），收录在蒂申多夫的《伪使徒行传》（Acta Apost. Apocr）中，第90页。

(22) “我将为自己选择这些事物。我天上的父赐给我的，是非常优秀的。”（I will choose these things to myself. Very excellent are those whom my Father that is in heaven hath given to me.） 来自《希伯来福音书》，由优西比乌引用（《神显论》，Theophan. iv. 13）。

(23) “主说，谈论祂的国度时，‘日子将来到，葡萄树将生长，每棵树有一万株枝条，每株枝条有一万根枝干，每根枝干有一万个嫩芽，每个嫩芽有一万串葡萄，每串葡萄被榨后将得到二十五斗酒。当任何一位圣徒抓住一串葡萄时，另一串就会喊着说，我是一串更好的葡萄，拿走我；通过我来赞美主。’同样，祂说，‘一粒小麦将产生一万个麦穗，每粒麦穗将产生十磅纯净的面粉；所有其他果实和种子以及每种草本植物都将按照其固有的性质。所有以地上所受食物为食的动物，都将彼此和平与和谐地生活，完全顺服于人类。’” 对于这个描述，帕皮亚（Papias）补充道：“这些事情对于那些相信的人是可信的。当叛徒犹大不相信并问道，‘主啊，这样的产物将如何而来？’主说，‘那些在我这个时候来到我这里的人将会看到。’”

穆罕默德传统在《古兰经》和其他著作中保留了几个关于基督的引人注目的言论，霍夫曼已将这些言论收集起来。 其中最好的一段如下：

“马利亚的儿子耶稣说，‘渴望富有的人就像喝海水的人；他喝得越多，就越口渴，直到他死去，他都不会停止喝水。’”

二、耶稣的个人形象

福音书作者都没有，甚至连耶稣所爱的门徒和知心朋友约翰，也没有给我们留下关于祂相貌、身材、声音、举止、饮食、衣着或日常生活方式的丝毫线索。 在这方面，我们出于自然情感的本能被明智地超越了。 作为所有人的救主和所有人的完美榜样，祂不应该被特定种族、民族或美貌的特征所限定。 我们应该紧紧抓住在圣灵和荣耀中的基督，而不是在肉身中的基督。 圣保罗也是这样想的（《哥林多后书》5:16；可参考《彼得前书》1:8）。 尽管看不见，祂却比所有人类都更受爱戴。

我看不见您，听不见您，

但您常与我同在；

世上再没有比我与您相遇时

更亲爱的地方。

毫无疑问，耶稣在衣着和外貌上适应了祂那个时代和人民的习俗，并避免了所有炫耀。 祂可能在繁忙的人群中不被人注意地穿行。 但对于更细心的观察者来说，祂的面容和个人仪态一定透露出一种属灵的美和一种令人敬畏的威严。 这有助于解释为什么门徒们如此乐意舍弃一切来跟随祂，并表现出无限的敬畏和奉献。 祂没有罪人的相貌。 祂拥有比圣人更超凡的相貌。 祂从祂的眼睛和面容中，反射出与上帝和谐相处的无罪灵魂的宁静和平和属天纯洁。 祂的存在使人敬畏、信任和喜爱。

在缺乏真实描绘的情况下，基督教艺术出于其不可抑制的欲望，试图以可见的形式展现“在人类中是最美丽的”那一位，这使得艺术只能依靠其对理想美的不完美概念。 在最初三个世纪的迫害下，教会对基督的图像表现持反对态度，并将其在受难状态下（而非高升状态下）与不美观的概念联系起来，过于字面地理解了《诗篇》第二十二篇和《以赛亚书》第五十三章中对受难弥赛亚的预言性描述。 在君士坦丁之后，得胜的教会则从《诗篇》第四十五篇和《雅歌》中的弥赛亚形象出发，将同一位主视为在天上荣耀中“比世人更美”和“全然可爱”的。 然而，这种差异并没有像有时所描述的那样巨大。 因为即使是尼西亚前教父（特别是亚历山大的革利免），除了明确区分基督第一次以卑微和谦卑出现，与祂第二次以荣耀和威严出现之外，他们也无意否认救主在肉身时代就拥有的更高层次的属灵之美，“来自天父的独生子所拥有的荣耀，充满了恩典和真理”，这荣耀透过祂的人性面纱闪耀，有时，比如在变形山上，预示了祂未来的荣耀。 “确实，”哲罗姆说，“一道火焰和星光般的明亮从祂的眼睛中闪烁，神性的威严在祂的脸上闪耀。”

基督在地下墓穴中最早的画像是纯粹象征性的，将祂描绘成羔羊、好牧人、鱼的形象。 鱼的形象与希腊词“Ichthys”（Ἰχθύς）有关，该词包含了“耶稣基督，上帝的儿子，救主”这些词的首字母（Ἰησοῦς Χριστός Θεοῦ Υἱός Σωτήρ）。 早期教会中真实的基督画像会冒犯犹太人，并对归信的异教徒构成诱惑和陷阱。

对基督个人形象的第一次正式描述，尽管并非真实，且肯定不早于四世纪，但对图像描绘产生了巨大影响。 它被归于异教徒普布利乌斯·伦图卢斯（Publius Lentulus），一个据说是彼拉多同代人，也是“耶路撒冷人民的总统”（当时没有这个职位），他用一封伪经拉丁书信寄给罗马元老院。 这封信首先在十二世纪安瑟伦（Anselm）著作的一份手稿中被发现，并由法布里修斯、卡普佐夫（Carpzov）、加布勒（Gabler）等人出版，略有不同。

另一份描述出现在八世纪的希腊神学家大马士革的约翰（John of Damascus）的著作中（《致皇帝提奥菲勒斯论可敬的圣像书信》Epist. ad Theoph. Imp. de venerandis Imag., 伪作），十四世纪的尼刻弗鲁斯（Nicephorus）的《教会历史》（Church History）中也有类似的描述（第一卷，第40章）。 它们将基督描绘成与祂母亲相似，并赋予祂高大但略带驼背的身材，美丽的眼睛，金色的长卷发，苍白的橄榄色肤色，修长的手指，以及一种表达高贵、智慧和耐心的神情。

在这些描述的基础上，以及阿布加尔（Abgar）和维罗妮卡（Veronica）的传说，产生了大量的基督画像，这些画像分为两类：Salvator（救主）画像，表达出平静的宁静和尊严，没有任何悲伤的痕迹；以及Ecce Homo（看这个人）画像，描绘的是戴着荆棘冠的受难救主。

三、约瑟夫斯关于施洗约翰的证词

《犹太古史》（Antiq. Jud.）第十八卷第五章第二节。 无论人们如何看待我们在第14节（第92页）中讨论的关于基督的更著名段落，关于约翰的这段话无疑是真实的，并被大多数学者所接受。 它充分且独立地证实了福音书关于约翰的工作和殉道的记载，并间接提供了论据，支持福音书关于基督的历史性，因为他只是为基督预备了道路。 我们引用惠斯顿（Whiston）的译文如下：“现在一些犹太人认为，希律军队的毁灭是来自上帝的，并且是公正的惩罚，因为他对被称为施洗约翰的人所做的事；因为希律杀了约翰，他是一个好人（ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα），并吩咐犹太人在彼此之间行公义，向上帝行虔诚，然后来接受洗礼；因为他认为，如果他们使用水洗，这将被上帝悦纳，但不是为了除去某些罪，而是为了身体的洁净；这仍然是假设灵魂已通过公义事先得到了彻底的洁净。 现在，当许多其他人成群结队地来到他身边时，因为他们听到他的话语大受感动[或很高兴]，希律害怕约翰对人民的巨大影响力可能使他有能力和意愿发动叛乱（因为他们似乎愿意听从他的任何建议），于是他认为最好的办法就是处死他，以防止他可能造成的任何伤害，而不是因为饶恕一个可能让他后悔的人而使自己陷入困境，届时将为时已晚。 因此，他因希律的猜疑而被送往我之前提到的马凯鲁斯城堡作为囚犯，并在那里被处死。 现在，犹太人认为这支军队的毁灭是上帝对希律的惩罚，也是祂对他的不满的标志。”

四、马拉于公元74年对基督的证词

这段圣经外的基督记载于1865年首次公之于众，上文第14节（第94页）曾提及。 它（根据库雷顿和普拉滕从叙利亚语翻译而来）如下：

“当智者被暴君强行拖走，他们的智慧因诽谤而被剥夺自由，他们因其[卓越的]才智而被掠夺，而[没有机会]进行辩护时，我们要说什么呢？[他们不值得完全被怜悯。] 因为雅典人处死苏格拉底得到了什么好处呢，他们为此得到了饥荒和瘟疫的报应？或者萨摩斯岛的人民焚烧毕达哥拉斯又得到了什么呢，他们的整个国家在一小时内就被沙子覆盖了？或者犹太人[谋杀]了他们的智慧之王又得到了什么呢，从那时起，他们的王国就被赶走了？因为上帝公正地给予了他们三人智慧的回报。 雅典人死于饥荒；萨摩斯岛的人民被大海覆盖，无药可救；犹太人被毁灭并被驱逐出他们的王国，被赶到每一片土地上。 [不]，苏格拉底并没有因为柏拉图而死去；毕达哥拉斯也没有因为赫拉女神的雕像而死去；智慧之王也没有因为他颁布的新律法而死去。”

马拉的国籍和身份不明。 佩恩·史密斯博士（Dr. Payne Smith）认为他是一名波斯人。 他从监狱里写信，并希望死去，“以何种方式死去与我无关”。 在他的信开头，马拉说：“因此，看哪，我为你写下这份记录，[关于]我通过仔细观察这个世界所发现的。 因为我对人类的生活方式进行了仔细的观察。 我踏上了学习的道路，并从对希腊哲学的研究中发现了所有这些事情，尽管当生命的诞生发生时，它们遭受了海难。” “生命的诞生”可能指基督教在世界上的出现，或马拉自己的归信。 但没有其他迹象表明他是一名基督徒。 他给儿子的建议仅仅是“致力于智慧，那是所有美好事物的源泉，是永不枯竭的宝藏”。

§ 19. 基督的复活

基督从死里复活，是四部福音书所记载、使徒书信所教导、全基督教世界所信仰，并在每个“主日”所庆祝的一个历史事实，是祂整个工作的巅峰奇迹和神圣印证，是信徒希望的基础，也是他们未来复活的保证。 在新约中，它既被呈现为全能父神的作为，祂使自己的儿子从死里复活（《使徒行传》2:24, 32；《罗马书》6:4；10:9；《哥林多前书》15:15；《以弗所书》1:20；《彼得前书》1:21），也被呈现为基督自己的作为，祂有权舍弃生命，也有权再取回生命（《约翰福音》2:19；10:17, 18）。 升天是复活的必然结论： “我是复活，我是生命”的主，祂复活的生命不能在地上以另一次死亡告终，而必须在天堂里继续祂永恒的荣耀。 因此，圣保罗说：“因为知道基督既从死里复活，就不再死，死也不再作他的主了。他死是向罪死了，只有一次；他活是向　神活着。”（《罗马书》6:9, 10）

基督教会建立在祂的创始人复活的基础之上。 没有这个事实，教会就不可能诞生，即使诞生，也会很快自然消亡。 复活的奇迹与基督教的存在紧密相连，它们要么共存，要么一同倒下。 如果基督从死里复活了，那么祂所有其他的神迹都是真实的，我们的信仰是坚不可摧的； 如果祂没有复活，那么祂的死就是徒然的，我们的信仰也是徒然的。 只有祂的复活，才使祂的死对我们的赎罪、称义和救赎有效； 没有复活，祂的死就是我们希望的坟墓； 我们仍然没有得到救赎，仍在罪恶的权势之下。 一个关于一位已死救主的福音，将是一个矛盾和可悲的妄想。 这是圣保罗的论证，其力量是不可抗拒的（《哥林多前书》15:13-19；《罗马书》4:25）。

因此，基督的复活是一个决定基督教真理或谬误的试金石问题。 它要么是历史上记载的最伟大的奇迹，要么是最大的妄想。

基督曾预言祂的受难和复活，但前者是门徒的绊脚石，后者是一个他们直到事后才能理解的奥秘。 毫无疑问，他们曾期待祂很快在地上建立祂的弥赛亚国度。 因此，在祂被钉十字架后，他们感到彻底的失望和沮丧。 他们自己人中的一个人的背叛，圣殿等级制度的胜利，民众的反复无常，以及他们所爱戴的夫子的死亡和安葬，在几个小时内无情地粉碎了他们的弥赛亚希望，使他们面临敌人的蔑视和嘲笑。 两天来，他们一直在绝望的边缘颤抖。 然而，到了第三天，同样的门徒却经历了一场彻底的革命，从沮丧转向希望，从胆怯转向勇气，从怀疑转向信仰，并开始在一个不信的世界面前，冒着生命危险宣讲复活的福音。 这场革命并非个别现象，而是在他们中间普遍发生的； 它不是轻信的结果，而是在怀疑和犹豫不决的情况下发生的； 它不是肤浅和短暂的，而是根本和持久的； 它不仅影响了使徒们，也影响了整个世界的历史。 它甚至影响了迫害的领袖大数的扫罗，他是当时头脑最清晰、思想最坚强的人之一，并使他转变为这个福音最忠诚、最热心的捍卫者，直至他殉道的那一刻。

对于每个阅读福音书最后几章的人来说，这是一个显而易见的事实，甚至最激进的怀疑论者也坦然承认。

现在出现一个问题：门徒生活中这场内在的革命，及其对人类命运的不可估量的影响，是否能在基督历史中没有相应的外在革命的情况下得到合理解释？换句话说，门徒所宣称的对复活基督的信仰是真实而可靠的，还是一个虚伪的谎言，或是一个真诚的自我欺骗？

对此，有四种可能的理论，它们被一次又一次地尝试，并以其支持者所能召集到的所有学识和智慧加以捍卫。 历史问题不像数学问题。 任何支持复活的论证，对于那些以奇迹是不可能发生的哲学假设为前提的批评家来说，都是无效的，对于那些不仅否定肉体复活，甚至否定灵魂不朽的人来说，更是如此。 但事实是顽固的，如果一个批判性假设被证明在心理学和历史上是不可能和不合理的，那么这个结果对于支撑该批判性假设的哲学来说是致命的。 历史学家的任务不是根据先入为主的观念来构建历史并使其符合自己的喜好，而是根据最好的证据来重现历史，并让它自己说话。

  1. 历史观点

    这是福音书所呈现并被所有教派和宗派的基督徒所信仰的观点。 基督的复活是一个真实的、尽管是奇迹般的事件，与祂之前的历史和品格相一致，并应验了祂自己的预言。 它是耶稣的尸体被其灵魂从灵界返回而重新获得生命，身体和灵魂从坟墓中升起，进入一个新的生命，经过四十天的短暂时间，祂多次向信徒显现，然后通过升天进入荣耀。 这些显现的目的不仅是为了让使徒们个人确信复活，也是为了让他们成为复活的见证人和向全世界传扬救恩的使者（《马太福音》28:18-20；《马可福音》16:15, 16；《路加福音》24:46-48；《约翰福音》20:21-23；《使徒行传》1:8）。

    坦率地说，在协调福音书作者的记载和形成对基督复活身体的一致概念方面，确实存在一些严重困难。 这个身体似乎介于天与地之间，在肉身和血肉的自然状态与超自然状态之间摇摆了四十天，它带有伤痕，却又如此属灵，以至于能穿过紧闭的门显现和消失，并能看得见地升入天堂。 但是，这些困难并不比否定这一事实本身所造成的困难更大。 前者可以在一定程度上得到解决，而后者则无法解决。 我们不知道所有能帮助我们清晰地追溯事件顺序的细节和情况。 但在所有这些差异中，复活本身这个伟大的中心事实及其主要特征“更加确定地凸显出来”。 四十天这个时期，就其性质而言，是基督生命中最神秘的时期，超越了所有普通的基督徒经历。 基督的显现，在某些方面类似于旧约中只赐予少数信徒、但却为了普遍益处的显神迹。 无论如何，复活的事实为门徒的思想和行为中突然、根本和持久的变化提供了唯一的解释； 它是连接他们在此事件前后历史的必要环节。 他们对复活的信仰是如此清晰、如此强烈、如此坚定、如此有效，以至于无法用任何其他方式来解释。 他们通过很快返回危险之地耶路撒冷，并在敌对的犹太公会面前建立了基督教的母教会，来展示了他们信念的力量和胆量。

  2. 欺诈理论

    该理论认为，使徒们偷走了并藏匿了耶稣的尸体，欺骗了世界。

    这个可耻的谎言本身就包含了驳斥： 如果按照祭司和法利赛人明确要求看守坟墓的罗马士兵睡着了，他们就不可能看到盗贼，也不会宣扬他们的军事罪行； 如果他们，或者其中一些人醒着，他们就会阻止盗窃。 至于门徒，他们当时过于胆怯和沮丧，不敢冒险做出如此大胆的行为，也过于诚实，不会欺骗世界。 最后，一个自己编造的谎言，不可能给他们带来面对死亡危险宣讲复活的勇气和坚定的信仰。 整个理论都是一个邪恶的荒谬，是对人类常识和荣誉的侮辱。

  3. 昏厥理论

    该理论认为，耶稣的肉体生命并未消亡，只是精疲力尽，并通过祂的朋友和门徒的细心照料而得以恢复，或者（有些人荒谬地补充说）通过祂自己的医疗技能；在短暂的一段时间后，祂安然地自然死亡。

    有人寻找并援引约瑟夫斯、瓦莱里乌斯·马克西姆斯（Valerius Maximus）、心理学和医学权威的例子，来证明这种从恍惚或窒息中看似复活的例子，尤其是在被认为是生命或腐烂的关键转折点的第三天。

    但是，除了不可逾越的物理困难之外——例如伤口和罗马士兵用枪刺穿祂心脏所造成的失血——这个理论完全无法解释其道德影响。 耶稣短暂、病弱的生存，需要医疗护理，并最终自然死亡和最终安葬，甚至没有受难所伴随的殉道荣耀，这不仅不能恢复使徒们的信仰，反而只会最终加深他们的沮丧，并把他们推向彻底的绝望。

  4. 异象理论

    该理论认为，基督的复活仅仅是祂的朋友们的想象，他们把主观的异象或梦境误认为是真实的现实，并因此受到鼓励，冒着生命危险宣扬对复活的信仰。 他们的愿望是信仰之父，他们的信仰是事实之父，而这种信仰一旦开始，便以一种宗教流行病的力量，从一个人传到另一个人，从一个地方传到另一个地方。 基督徒群体通过对基督强烈的爱，创造了这个奇迹。 因此，复活根本不属于基督的历史，而是属于祂门徒的内在生命。 它仅仅是他们复苏的信仰的体现。

    这个假设首先是由二世纪的一位异教徒反对者提出的，但很快就被人们遗忘了，直到十九世纪才重新出现，并在德国、法国、荷兰和英国的怀疑论批评家中像流行病一样迅速传播。

    该假设的倡导者首先和主要援引圣保罗在大马士革路上的异象，尽管这个异象发生得晚了几年，但他们仍然将其与早期向使徒们的显现置于同等地位（《哥林多前书》15:8）； 其次，他们援引宗教狂热和神秘主义历史中的类似事例，例如阿西西的圣方济各、奥尔良的圣女贞德、圣特蕾莎（她相信自己用灵魂的眼睛看到了耶稣本人，比用肉眼看得更清楚）、斯韦登堡、甚至穆罕默德的个人异象，以及小亚细亚孟他努派、法国卡米撒派的集体异象，还有殉道的坎特伯雷的托马斯·贝克特和佛罗伦萨的萨沃纳罗拉在其崇拜者激动想象中的幽灵复活，以及卢尔德圣母的显现。

    没有人会否认主观幻想和印象常常被误认为是客观现实。 但，除了圣保罗的例子之外——我们将在适当的地方考虑这一点，它甚至根据怀疑论批评家领袖的承认，也成为反对神话或异象理论的有力论据——这些所谓的类比是完全不相关的； 因为，不提其他差异，它们是孤立和短暂的现象，没有在历史上留下任何印记； 而对基督复活的信仰，却彻底改变了整个世界。 因此，它必须作为一个完全独特的案例来对待。

    （a）反对复活异象性、并支持其客观真实性的第一个不可逾越的论据是基督空空的坟墓。 如果祂没有复活，祂的尸体要么被移走了，要么留在了坟墓里。 如果被门徒移走，那么他们在传讲复活时就是在犯一个蓄意的谎言，异象假设就会让位给被推翻的欺诈理论。 如果被敌人移走，那么这些敌人就有反对复活的最佳证据，并且会毫不犹豫地拿出证据，从而揭露异象的无根据性。 当然，如果尸体留在了坟墓里，情况也是如此。 基督的谋杀者肯定不会错过这样的机会来摧毁这个他们所憎恨的教派的基础。

    为了逃避这个困难，施特劳斯将错觉的起源远移到加利利，门徒们逃到了那里； 但这并无帮助，因为他们在几周后就回到了耶路撒冷，我们在五旬节那天看到他们都聚集在那里。

    这个论点甚至对最高形式的异象假设也是致命的，这种假设承认基督从天堂显现是一种属灵的现象，但否认祂身体的复活。 它不，也不能告诉我们基督的身体发生了什么。

    （b）如果基督没有真正复活，那么祂对抹大拉的马利亚、去以马忤斯的两个门徒、怀疑的多马、在提比哩亚海边的彼得以及在橄榄山上的所有门徒所说的话，同样都是虔诚的虚构。 但是，谁能相信，如此庄严和威严的话语，如此适合于前往荣耀宝座的庄严时刻，如传福音给万民、奉父、子、圣灵的名给万国施洗、并应许祂将永远与门徒同在直到世界末了——这个应许在教会的日常经历中得到了充分验证——会出自梦想家、自我欺骗的狂热者或疯癫的狂信徒之口呢？ 正如《登山宝训》或《祭司祷告》不可能出自他们之口一样！ 又有谁，只要有一点历史感，能认为耶稣从未设立洗礼呢？洗礼自五旬节那天起就一直以祂的名义进行，并且像庆祝主餐一样，每天都在为主作见证，正如阳光为太阳作证一样！

    （c）如果复活的异象是激动想象力的产物，那么它们在第四十天突然停止（《使徒行传》1:15），并且此后再也没有发生在任何门徒身上，这都是无法解释的，唯一的例外是保罗，他明确表示他的基督异象是“最后一次”。 即使在五旬节那天，基督也没有向他们显现，而是根据祂的应许，“另一位保惠师”降临在他们身上； 司提反是在天堂，而不是在地上，看到了基督。

    （d）对异象假设的主要反对意见是其内在的不可能性。 它要求我们相信最过分的轻信。 它要求我们相信许多人，无论是单独还是集体，在不同的时间，在不同的地方，从耶路撒冷到大马士革，都看到了相同的异象，做了相同的梦； 清晨在空坟墓前的妇女，彼得和约翰紧随其后，复活日那天下午去以马忤斯的两个门徒，晚上在多马不在场时聚集的使徒们，以及下一个主日在怀疑的多马在场时的使徒们，在提比哩亚海边的七位使徒，有一次同时有五百个弟兄，他们中的大多数在保罗报告这个事实时仍然活着，然后是主的兄弟雅各，他以前不信祂，最后是在升天时所有在橄榄山上的使徒们，以及在大马士革路上那个头脑清晰、意志坚强的迫害者——所有这些人，在这些不同的场合，都错误地想象自己看到了并听到了同一个身体和形状的耶稣； 并且他们因这个毫无根据的异象，突然从主被钉十字架所留下的最深的沮丧中，被提升到最大胆的信仰和最强的希望，这驱使他们从耶路撒冷到罗马，直至生命的尽头，宣讲复活的福音！ 我们被要求相信，这种早期门徒的错觉，不仅在他们自己的观点和行为中，而且在犹太人和外邦人以及随后的人类历史中，创造了最伟大的革命！ 我们被这些不信者要求相信，这种错觉诞生了所有事实中最真实、最有力的一个，即已经持续了1800年，并且现在遍布整个文明世界，拥有比以往更多成员，并拥有比所有王国和所有其他宗教加起来都更多的道德力量的基督教教会！

    异象假设，非但没有消除奇迹，反而只是将其从事实转移到了虚构； 它使得一个空洞的妄想比真理更有力量，或最终将所有历史本身变成一个妄想。 在我们能将基督的复活从历史中剔除之前，我们必须将使徒和基督教本身从存在中剔除。 我们要么承认这个奇迹，要么坦率地承认我们站在一个无法解释的奥秘面前。

引人注目的让步

最能干的异象理论倡导者，违背他们自己的意愿，被迫承认复活或升天基督的异象中存在一些无法解释的客观现实。

蒂宾根的鲍尔博士（Dr. Baur，卒于1860年），这位怀疑论教会历史学家中的大师，蒂宾根学派的领袖，最终得出结论（正如他在他死前不久出版的《前三个世纪教会历史》修订版，1860年中所述）：“除了复活的奇迹，没有什么能驱散那些似乎要把信仰本身推入永恒死亡之夜的疑虑。”（Nur das Wunder der Auferstehung konnte die Zweifel zerstreuen, welche den Glauben selbst in die ewige Nacht des Todes verstossen zu müssen schienen.） 《基督教教会历史》（Geschichte der christlichen Kirche），第一卷，第39页。 他确实补充说，复活本身的性质超出了历史调查的范围（Was die Auferstehung an sich ist, liegt ausserhalb des Kreises der geschichtlichen Untersuchung）， 但也表示，“对于门徒的信仰来说，耶稣的复活成为最坚实、最无可辩驳的确定性。 只有在这种信仰中，基督教才获得了其历史发展的坚实基础。（In diesem Glauben hat erst das Christenthum den festen Grund seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung gewonnen.） 历史所要求作为所有后续事件的必要先决条件的，与其说是复活本身的事实，不如说是对那个事实的信仰。 无论我们如何看待耶稣的复活，无论是作为实际发生的客观奇迹（als ein objectiv geschehenes Wunder），还是作为主观的心理奇迹（oder als ein subjectiv psychologisches）， 即使承认这种奇迹的可能性，也没有任何心理分析能够穿透门徒意识中那个内在的属灵过程，即他们对耶稣之死的怀疑如何转变为对祂复活的信仰…… 我们必须满足于此：对于他们来说，基督的复活是他们意识中的一个事实，并且对他们来说，它拥有历史事件的所有真实性。”（同上，第39、40页）。 关于圣保罗归信的鲍尔的引人注目的结论（同上，第44、45页），我们将在适当的地方进行讨论。

哥廷根的埃瓦尔德博士（Dr. Ewald，卒于1874年），这位伟大的东方学家和以色列历史学家，与鲍尔对立，在深厚的学识和大胆、独立、通常是专断的批判方面与鲍尔不相上下，但在对《圣经》精神的宗教同情上更胜一筹。 他在他的《使徒时代历史》（《以色列人民史》Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 第六卷，第52页及后续）中讨论了基督的复活，而不是在他的《基督生平》中， 并将其归结为一种纯粹的属灵显现，尽管是长期持续的。 尽管如此，他仍然做出了强烈的陈述（第69页）：“历史上没有比基督从死里复活并向祂的门徒显现，以及这他们的异象是他们新的更高信仰和他们所有基督徒工作的开始，更确定的事了。”（Nichts steht geschichtlich fester,）他说，“…als dass Christus aus den Todten auferstanden den Seinigen wiederschien und dass dieses ihr wiedersehen der anfang ihres neuen höhern glaubens und alles ihres Christlichen wirkens selbst war.”

苏黎世的凯姆博士（Dr. Keim，卒于吉森，1879年），他是鲍尔的独立学生，也是自由派批判学派所撰写的最详尽、最有价值的《基督生平》一书的作者。 在对复活的神话观点给予了所有可能的优势之后，他承认，这终究只是一个假设，并且无法解释主要问题。 他说（《拿撒勒人耶稣历史》Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 第三卷，第600页）：“经过所有这些考虑，人们必须承认，这个最近变得流行的理论，也仅仅是一个假设，它解释了一部分，但没有解释主要部分，甚至从整体上看，它将历史所证明的事实置于一个扭曲和站不住脚的观点之下。 但是，如果保留所传承的复活故事和借助保罗异象来构建对所发生事情的自然解释的尝试同样失败，那么对于历史来说，剩下的唯一途径就是承认，饶舌的故事的传奇性以及可信的故事的晦涩简短，使得我们无法对耶稣生命之谜的结局给出一个确凿、不可动摇的结果，尽管这些结局本身及其对世界历史的影响是如此重要。 对于历史来说，只要它只用可命名、明显的数字和一系列可触及、公认的原因和结果来计算，那么唯一的事实和无可置疑的，就只有使徒们坚定的信念：耶稣复活了，以及这种信念所产生的巨大影响：人类的基督化。” 在第601页，他表达了这样的信念：“正是被钉十字架并活着的基督，他不是作为复活者，而更多地是作为属天荣耀的人（als der wenn nicht Auferstandene, so doch vielmehr himmlisch Verherrlichte），向祂的门徒显现异象，并向祂的社群显现自己。” 在他关于这个伟大问题的最后论述中，凯姆，鉴于自然解释的枯竭和失败，得出结论，我们要么像鲍尔博士那样，谦卑地承认我们的无知，要么回到使徒们的信仰，他们“已经看见了主”（《约翰福音》20:25）。

海德堡的申克尔博士（Dr. Schenkel），在他的《耶稣的性格》（Charakterbild Jesu）中（第三版，1864年，第231页及后续），曾以一种更高的形式——作为来自天堂的纯粹属灵但真实的显现——采纳了异象理论，但在他最新的著作《使徒的基督形象》（Das Christusbild der Apostel，1879年，第18页）中，他承认自己无法解决基督复活的难题，并说：“研究永远无法探究出复活信仰的奥秘。 然而，在历史上，没有什么比这个信仰的事实更坚定了； 基督教团体的建立就建立在它之上…… 异象假设试图用因‘精神和神经生活’增强而产生的感官错觉来解释门徒的基督显现…… 但首先，它被门徒们，尤其是彼得，当时情绪的基本特征所阻碍：深深的悲伤、低落的自信心、痛苦的良心折磨、失去的生活勇气。 这样一种情绪，如何能产生复活者被荣耀的形象，以及那种无与伦比的确定性和不可摧毁的喜悦呢？ 正是这种确定性和喜悦，使得复活的信仰能够在所有风暴和迫害中维持基督徒群体的存在。”

CHAPTER II. JESUS CHRIST.

Table of Contents

§ 14. Sources and Literature.

§ 15. The Founder of Christianity.

§ 16. Chronology of the Life of Christ.

§ 17. The Land and the People.

§ 18. Apocryphal Traditions.

§ 19. The Resurrection of Christ.

§ 14. Sources and Literature.

A. Sources.

Christ himself wrote nothing, but furnished endless material for books and songs of gratitude and praise. The living Church of the redeemed is his book. He founded a religion of the living spirit, not of a written code, like the Mosaic law. ( His letter to King Abgarus of Edessa, in Euseb., Hist. Eccl., I. 13, is a worthless fabrication.) Yet his words and deeds are recorded by as honest and reliable witnesses as ever put pen to paper.

I. Authentic Christian Sources.

  1. The four Canonical Gospels. Whatever their origin and date, they exhibit essentially the same divine-human life and character of Christ, which stands out in sharp contrast with the fictitious Christ of the Apocryphal Gospels, and cannot possibly have been invented, least of all by illiterate Galileans. They would never have thought of writing books without the inspiration of their Master.
  2. The Acts of Luke, the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse of John. They presuppose, independently of the written Gospels, the main facts of the gospel-history, especially the crucifixion and the resurrection, and abound in allusions to these facts. Four of the Pauline Epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians) are admitted as genuine by the most extreme of liberal critics (Baur and the Tübingen School), and from them alone a great part of the life of Christ might be reconstructed. (See the admissions of Keim, Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., I. 35 sqq.)

II. Apocryphal Gospels:

The Apocryphal Gospels are very numerous (about 50), some of them only known by name, others in fragments, and date from the second and later centuries. They are partly heretical (Gnostic and Ebionite) perversions or mutilations of the real history, partly innocent compositions of fancy, or religious novels intended to link together the disconnected periods of Christ’s biography, to satisfy the curiosity concerning his relations, his childhood, his last days, and to promote the glorification of the Virgin Mary. They may be divided into four classes: (1) Heretical Gospels (as the Evangelium Cerinthi, Ev. Marcionis, Ev. Judae Ischariotae, Ev. secundum Hebraeos, etc.); (2) Gospels of Joseph and Mary, and the birth of Christ (Protevangelium Jacobi, Evang. Pseudo-Mathaei sive liber de Ortu Beatae Mariae et Infantia Salvatoris, Evang. de Nativitate Mariae, Historia Josephi Fabri lignarii, etc.); (3) Gospels of the childhood of Jesus from the flight to Egypt till his eighth or twelfth year (Evang. Thomae, of Gnostic origin, Evang. Infantiae Arabicum, etc.); (4) Gospels of the passion and the mysterious triduum in Hades (Evang. Nicodemi, including the Gesta or Acta Pilati and the Descensus ad Inferos, Epistola Pilati, a report of Christ’s passion to the emperor Tiberius, Paradosis Pilati, Epistolae Herodis ad Pilatum and Pilati ad Herodem, Responsum Tiberii ad Pilatum, Narratio Josephi Arimathiensis, etc.). It is quite probable that Pilate sent an account of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus to his master in Rome (as Justin Martyr and Tertullian confidentially assert), but the various documents bearing his name are obviously spurious, including the one recently published by Geo. Sluter (The Acta Pilati, Shelbyville, Ind. 1879), who professes to give a translation from the supposed authentic Latin copy in the Vatican Library.

These apocryphal productions have no historical, but considerable apologetic value; for they furnish by their contrast with the genuine Gospels a very strong negative testimony to the historical truthfulness of the Evangelists, as a shadow presupposes the light, a counterfeit the real coin, and a caricature the original picture. They have contributed largely to mediaeval art (e.g., the ox and the ass in the history of the nativity), and to the traditional Mariology and Mariolatry of the Greek and Roman churches, and have supplied Mohammed with his scanty knowledge of Jesus and Mary.

See the collections of the apocryphal Gospels by Fabricius (Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Hamburg, 1703, 2d ed. 1719), Thilo (Cod. Apocr. N. Ti., Lips. 1832), Tischendorf (Evangelia Apocrypha, Lips. 1853), W. Wright (Contributions to the Apocr. Lit. of the N. T. from Syrian MSS. in the British Museum, Lond. 1865), B. Harris Cowper (The Apocryphal Gospels, translated, London, 1867), and Alex. Walker (Engl. transl. in Roberts & Donaldson’s “Ante-Nicene Library,” vol. xvi., Edinb. 1870; vol. viii. of Am. ed., N. Y. 1886).

Comp. the dissertations of Tischendorf: De Evang. aproc. origine et usu (Hagae, 1851), and Pilati circa Christum judicio quid lucis offeratur ex Actis Pilati (Lips. 1855). Rud. Hofmann: Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen (Leipz. 1851), and his art., Apokryphen des N. T, in Herzog & Plitt, “R. Encykl.,” vol. i. (1877), p. 511. G. Brunet: Les évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1863. Michel Nicolas: Études sur les évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1866. Lipsius: Die Pilatus-Acten, Kiel, 1871; Die edessenische Abgar-Sage, 1880; Gospels, Apocr., in Smith & Wace, I. 700 sqq.; Holtzmann Einl. in’s N. T., pp. 534–’54.

III. Jewish Sources.

The O. Test. Scriptures are, in type and prophecy, a preparatory history of Christ, and become fully intelligible only in him who came “to fulfill the law and the prophets.”

The Apocryphal and post-Christian Jewish writings give us a full view of the outward framework of society and religion in which the life of Christ moved, and in this way they illustrate and confirm the Gospel accounts.

IV. Jewish historian Josephus

The famous testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus (d. after a.d. 103) deserves special consideration. In his Antiqu. Jud., 1. xviii. cap. 3,§ 3, he gives the following striking summary of the life of Jesus:

“Now there rose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works (paradovxwn e[rgwn poihthv”), a teacher of such men as receive the truth with gladness. He carried away with him many of the Jews and also many of the Greeks. He was the Christ (oJ Cristo;” ou|to” h\n). And after Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, his first adherents did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again the third day (ejfavnh ga;r aujtoi’” trivthn e[cwn hJmevran pavlin zw’n); the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things (a[lla muriva qaumavsia) concerning him. And the tribe of those called Christians, after him, is not extinct to this day.”

This testimony is first quoted by Eusebius, twice, without a misgiving (Hist. Eccl., I. II; and Demonstr. Evang., III. 5), and was considered genuine down to the 16th century, but has been disputed ever since. We have added the most doubtful words in Greek.

The following are the arguments for the genuineness:

(1) The testimony is found in all the MSS. of Josephus.

But these MSS. were written by Christians, and we have none older than from the 11th century.

(2) It agrees with the style of Josephus.

(3) It is extremely improbable that Josephus, in writing a history of the Jews coming down to a.d. 66, should have ignored Jesus; all the more since he makes favorable mention of John the Baptist (Antiqu., XVIII. 5, 2), and of the martyrdom of James “the Brother of Jesus called the Christ” (Antiqu. XX 9, 1: to;n ajdelfo;n jIhsou’ tou’ legomevnou Cristou’, jjIavkabo” o[noma aujtw/‘). Both passages are generally accepted as genuine, unless the words tou’ legomevnou Cristou’ should be an interpolation.

Against this may be said that Josephus may have had prudential reasons for ignoring Christianity altogether.

Arguments against the genuineness:

(1) The passage interrupts the connection.

But not necessarily. Josephus had just recorded a calamity which befell the Jews under Pontius Pilate, in consequence of a sedition, and he may have regarded the crucifixion of Jesus as an additional calamity. He then goes on (§ 4 and 5) to record another calamity, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Tiberius.

(2) It betrays a Christian, and is utterly inconsistent with the known profession of Josephus as a Jewish priest of the sect of the Pharisees. We would rather expect him to have represented Jesus as an impostor, or as an enthusiast.

But it may be urged, on the other hand, that Josephus, with all his great literary merits, is also known as a vain and utterly unprincipled man, as a renegade and sycophant who glorified and betrayed his nation, who served as a Jewish general in the revolt against Rome, and then, after having been taken prisoner, flattered the Roman conquerors, by whom he was richly rewarded. History furnishes many examples of similar inconsistencies. Remember Pontius Pilate who regarded Christ as innocent, and yet condemned him to death, the striking testimonies of Rousseau and Napoleon I. to the divinity of Christ, and also the concessions of Renan, which contradict his position.

(3) It is strange that the testimony should not have been quoted by such men as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or any other writer before Eusebius (d. 340), especially by Origen, who expressly refers to the passages of Josephus on John the Baptist and James (Contra Cels., I. 35, 47). Even Chrysostom (d. 407), who repeatedly mentions Josephus, seems to have been ignorant of this testimony.

In view of these conflicting reasons, there are different opinions:

(1) The passage is entirely genuine. This old view is defended by Hauteville, Oberthür, Bretschneider, Böhmert, Whiston, Schoedel (1840), Böttger (Das Zeugniss des Jos., Dresden, 1863).

(2) It is wholly interpolated by a Christian hand. Bekker (in his ed. of Jos., 1855), Hase (1865 and 1876), Keim (1867), Schürer (1874).

(3) It is partly genuine, partly interpolated. Josephus probably wrote Xristo;” ou\to” ejlevgeto (as in the passage on James), but not h|n and all other Christian sentences were added by a transcriber before Eusebius, for apologetic purposes. So Paulus, Heinichen, Gieseler (I. § 24, p. 81, 4th Germ. ed.), Weizsäcker, Renan, Farrar. In the introduction to his Vie de Jésus (p. xii.), Renan says: “Je crois le passage sur Jésus authentique. Il est parfaitement dans le goût de Joseph, et si cet historian a fait mention de Jésus, c’est bien comme cela qu’il a dû en parler. On sent seulement qu’une main chrétienne a retouché le morceau, y a ajouté quelques mots sans lesquels il eút été presque blasphématoire, a peut-étre retranché ou modifié quelques expressions.“

(4) It is radically changed from a Jewish calumny into its present Christian form. Josephus originally described Jesus as a pseudo-Messiah, a magician, and seducer of the people, who was justly crucified. So Paret and Ewald (Gesch. Christus’, p. 183, 3d ed.).

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Josephus must have taken some notice of the greatest event in Jewish history (as he certainly did of John the Baptist and of James), but that his statement—whether non-committal or hostile—was skillfully enlarged or altered by a Christian hand, and thereby deprived of its historical value.

In other respects, the writings of Josephus contain, indirectly, much valuable testimony, to the truth of the gospel history. His History of the Jewish War is undesignedly a striking commentary on the predictions of our Saviour concerning the destruction of the city and the temple of Jerusalem; the great distress and affliction of the Jewish people at that time; the famine, pestilence, and earthquake; the rise of false prophets and impostors, and the flight of his disciples at the approach of these calamities. All these coincidences have been traced out in full by the learned Dr. Lardner, in his Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the Christian Religion, first published 1764–’67, also in vol. vi. of his Works, ed. by Kippis, Lond. 1838.

V. Heathen testimonies are few and meagre.

This fact must be accounted for by the mysterious origin, the short duration and the unworldly character of the life and work of Christ, which was exclusively devoted to the kingdom of heaven, and, was enacted in a retired country and among a people despised by the proud Greeks and Romans.

The oldest heathen testimony is probably in the Syriac letter of Mara, a philosopher, to his son Serapion, about a.d. 74, first published by Cureton, in Spicilegium Syriacum, Lond. 1855, and translated by Pratten in the “Ante-Nicene Library,” Edinb. vol. xxiv. (1872), 104–114. Here Christ is compared to Socrates and Pythagoras, and called “the wise king of the Jews,” who were justly punished for murdering him. Ewald (l.c. p. 180) calls this testimony “very remarkable for its simplicity and originality as well as its antiquity.”

Roman authors of the 1st and 2d centuries make only brief and incidental mention of Christ as the founder of the Christian religion, and of his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus, Annales, I. xv. cap. 44, notices him in connection with his account of the conflagration at Rome and the Neronian persecution, in the words: “Auctor nominis ejus [Christiani] Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat,” and calls the Christian religion an exitiabilis superstitio. Comp. his equally contemptuous misrepresentation of the Jews in Hist., v. c. 3–5. Other notices are found in Suetonius: Vita Claudii, c. 25; Vita Neronis, c. 16; Plinius, jun.: Epist., X. 97, 98; Lucian: De morte Peregr., c. 11; Lampridius: Vita Alexandri Severi, c. 29, 43.

The heathen opponents of Christianity, Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, etc., presuppose the principal facts of the gospel-history, even the miracles of Jesus, but they mostly derive them, like the Jewish adversaries, from evil spirits. Comp. my book on the Person of Christ, Appendix, and Dr. Nath. Lardner’s Credibility, and Collection of Testimonies.

B. Biographical and Critical.

The numerous Harmonies of the Gospel began already a.d. 170, with Tatian’s to; dia; tessavrwn (on which Ephraem Syrus, in the fourth century, wrote a commentary, published in Latin from an Armenian version in the Armenian convent at Venice, 1876). The first biographies of Christ were ascetic or poetic, and partly legendary. See Hase, Leben Jesu, § 17–19. The critical period began with the infidel and infamous attacks of Reimarus, Bahrdt, and Venturini, and the noble apologetic works of Hess, Herder, and Reinhard. But a still greater activity was stimulated by the Leben Jesu of Strauss, 1835 and again by Renan’s Vie de Jésus, 1863.

J. J. Hess (Antistes at Zürich, d. 1828): Lebensgeschichte Jesu. Zürich, 1774; 8th ed. 1823, 3 vols. Translated into Dutch and Danish. He introduced the psychological and pragmatic treatment.

F. V. Rienhard (d. 1812): Versuch über den Plan Jesu. Wittenberg, 1781; 5th ed. by Heubner, 1830. English translation, N. York, 1831. Reinhard proved the originality and superiority of the plan of Christ above all the conceptions of previous sages and benefactors of the race.

J. G. Herder (d. 1803): Vom Erlöser der Menschen nach unsern 3 ersten Evang. Riga, 1796. The same: Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland, nach Joh. Evang. Riga, 1797.

H. E. G. Paulus (Prof. in Heidelberg, d. 1851): Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristenthums. Heidelb. 1828, 2 vols. Represents the “vulgar” rationalism superseded afterwards by the speculative rationalism of Strauss.

C. Ullmann (d. 1865): Die Sündlosigkeit Jesu. Hamb. 1828; 7th ed. 1864. Eng. translation (of 7th ed.) by Sophia Taylor, Edinb. 1870. The best work on the sinlessness of Jesus. Comp. also his essay (against Strauss), Historisch oder Mythisch? Gotha, 1838.

Karl Hase: Das Leben Jesu. Leipz. 1829; 5th ed. 1865. The same: Geschichte Jesu. Leipz. 1876.

Schleiermacher (d. 1834): Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu, herausgeg. von Rütenik. Berlin, 1864. The lectures were delivered 1832, and published from imperfect manuscripts. “Eine Stimme aus vergangenen Tagen.” Comp. the critique of D. F. Strauss in Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. Berlin, 1865.

D. F. Strauss (d. 1874): Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet. Tübingen, 1835–’36; 4th ed. 1840, 2 vols. French transl. by Emile Littré, Par. 1856 (2d ed.); Engl. transl. by Miss Marian Evans (better known under the assumed name George Eliot), Lond. 1846, in 3 vols., republ. in N. York, 1850. The same: Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. Leipz. 1864; 3d ed. 1875. In both these famous works Strauss represents the mythical theory. It has been popularized in the third volume of The Bible for Learners by Oort and Hooykaas, Engl. transl., Boston ed. 1879.

A. Neander (d. 1850): Das Leben Jesu. Hamb. 1837; 5th ed. 1852. A positive refutation of Strauss. The same in English by McClintock and Blumenthal, N. York, 1848.

Joh. Nep. Sepp (R. C.): Das Leben Jesu Christi. Regensb. 1843 sqq. 2d ed. 1865, 6 vols. Much legendary matter.

Jordan Bucher (R. C.): Das Leben Jesu Christi. Stuttgart, 1859.

A. Ebrard: Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte. Erl. 1842; 3d ed. 1868. Against Strauss, Bruno Bauer, etc. Condensed English translation, Edinb. 1869.

J. P. Lange: Das Leben Jesu. Heidelb. 1844–’47, 3 parts in 5 vols. Engl. transl. by Marcus Dods and others, in 6 vols., Edinb. 1864. Rich and suggestive.

J. J. van Oosterzee: Leven van Jesus. First publ. in 1846–’51, 3 vols. 2d ed. 1863–’65. Comp. his Christologie, Rotterdam, 1855–’61, 3 vols., which describe the Son of God before his incarnation, the Son of God in the flesh, and the Son of God in glory. The third part is translated into German by F. Meyering: Das Bild Christi nach der Schrift, Hamburg, 1864.

Chr. Fr. Schmid: Biblische Theologie des N. Testaments. Ed. by Weizsäcker. Stuttgart, 1853 (3d ed. 1854), 2 vols. The first volume contains the life and doctrine of Christ. The English translation by G. H. Venables (Edinb. 1870) is an abridgment.

H. Ewald: Geschichte Christus’ und seiner Zeit. Gött. 1854; 3d ed 1867 (vol. v. of his Hist. of Israel). Transl. into Engl. by O. Glover, Cambridge, 1865.

J. Young: The Christ of History. Lond. and N. York, 1855. 5th ed., 1868.

P. Lichtenstein: Lebensgeschichte Jesu in chronolog. Uebersicht. Erlangen, 1856.

C. J. Riggenbach: Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu. Basel, 1858.

M. Baumgarten: Die Geschichte Jesu für das Verständniss der Gegenwart. Braunschweig, 1859.

W. F. Gess: Christi Person und Werk nach Christi Selbstzeugniss und den Zeugnissen der Apostel. Basel, 1878, in several parts. (This supersedes his first work on the same subject, publ. 1856.)

Horace Bushnell (d. 1878): The Character of Jesus: forbidding his possible classification with men. N. York, 1861. (A reprint of the tenth chapter of his work on, “Nature and the Supernatural,” N. York, 1859.) It is the best and most useful product of his genius.

C. J. Elliott (Bishop): Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, being the Hulsean Lect. for 1859. 5th ed. Lond. 1869; republ. in Boston, 1862.

Samuel J. Andrews: The Life of our Lord upon the earth, considered in its historical, chronological, and geographical relations. N. York, 1863; 4th ed. 1879

Ernest Renan: Vie de Jésus. Par. 1863, and often publ. since (13th ed. 1867) and in several translations. Strauss popularized and Frenchified. The legendary theory. Eloquent, fascinating, superficial, and contradictory.

Daniel Schenkel: Das Characterbild Jesu. Wiesbaden, 1864; 4th ed. revised 1873. English transl. by W. H. Furness. Boston, 1867, 2 vols. By the same: Das Christusbild der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit. Leipz. 1879. See also his art., Jesus Christus, in Schenkel’s “Bibel-Lexikon,” III. 257 sqq. Semi-mythical theory. Comp. the sharp critique of Strauss on the Characterbild: Die Halben und die Ganzen. Berlin, 1865.

Philip Schaff: The Person of Christ: the Perfection of his Humanity viewed as a Proof of his Divinity. With a Collection of Impartial Testimonies. Boston and N. York, 1865; 12th ed., revised, New York, 1882. The same work in German, Gotha, 1865; revised ed., N. York (Am. Tract Soc.), 1871; in Dutch by Cordes, with an introduction by J. J. van Oosterzee. Groningen, 1866; in French by Prof. Sardinoux, Toulouse, 1866, and in other languages. By the same: Die Christusfrage. N. York and Berlin, 1871.

Ecce Homo: A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ. [By Prof. J. R. Seeley, of Cambridge.] Lond. 1864, and several editions and translations. It gave rise also to works on Ecce Deus, Ecce Deus Homo, and a number of reviews and essays (one by Gladstone).

Charles Hardwick (d. 1859): Christ and other Masters. Lond., 4th ed., 1875. (An extension of the work of Reinhard; Christ compared with the founders of the Eastern religions.)

E. H. Plumptre: Christ and Christendom. Boyle Lectures. Lond. 1866

E. de Pressensé: Jésus Christ, son temps, sa vie, son oeuvre. Paris, 1866. (Against Renan.) The same transl. into English by Annie Harwood (Lond., 7th ed. 1879), and into German by Fabarius (Halle, 1866).

F. Delitzsch: Jesus und Hillel. Erlangen, 1867; 3rd ed. revised, 1879.

Theod. Keim (Prof. in Zürich, and then in Giessen, d. 1879); Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. Zürich, 1867–’72, 3 vols. Also an abridgment in one volume, 1873, 2d ed. 1875. (This 2d ed. has important additions, particularly a critical Appendix.) The large work is translated into English by Geldart and Ransom. Lond. (Williams & Norgate), 1873–82, 6 vols. By the same author: Der geschichtliche Christus. Zürich, 3d ed. 1866. Keim attempts to reconstruct a historical Christ from the Synoptical Gospels, especially Matthew, but without John.

Wm. HANNA: The Life of our Lord. Edinb. 1868–’69, 6 vols.

Bishop Dupanloup (R. C.): Histoire de noire Sauveur Jésus Christ. Paris, 1870.

Fr. W. Farrar (Canon of Westminster): The Life of Christ. Lond. and N. York, 1874, 2 vols. (in many editions, one with illustrations).

C. Geikie: The Life and Words of Christ. Lond. and N. York, 1878,·2 vols. (Illustrated. Several editions.)

Bernhard Weis (Prof. in Berlin): Das Leben Jesu. Berlin, 1882, 2 vols., 3d ed. 1888. English transl. Edinb. 1885, 3 vols.

Alfred Edersheim: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. London and N. Y. 1884, 2 vols. Strictly orthodox. Valuable for rabbinical illustrations.,

W. Beyschlag: Das Leben Jesu. Halle, 1885–’86, 2 vols.; 2d ed. 1888.

The works of Paulus, Strauss, and Renan (also Joseph Salvador, a learned Jew in France, author of Jésus Christ et sa doctrine, Par. 1838) represent the various phases of rationalism and destructive criticism, but have called forth also a copious and valuable apologetic literature. See the bibliography in Hase’s Leben Jesu, 5th ed. p. 44 sqq., and in his Geschichte Jesu, p. 124 sqq. Schleiermacher, Gfrörer, Weisse, Ewald, Schenkel, Hase, and Keim occupy, in various degrees and with many differences, a middle position. The great Schleiermacher almost perished in the sea of scepticism, but, like Peter, he caught the saving arm of Jesus extended to him (Matt. 14:30, 31). Hase is very valuable for the bibliography and suggestive sketches, Ewald and Keim for independent research and careful use of Josephus and the contemporary history. Keim rejects, Ewald accepts, the Gospel of John as authentic; both admit the sinless perfection of Jesus, and Keim, from his purely critical and synoptical standpoint, goes so far as to say (vol. iii. 662) that Christ, in his gigantic elevation above his own and succeeding ages, “makes the impression of mysterious loneliness, superhuman miracle, divine creation (den Eindruck geheimnissvoller Einsamkeit, übermenschlichen Wunders, göttlicher Schöpfung).“ Weiss and Beyschlag mark a still greater advance, and triumphantly defend the genuineness of John’s Gospel, but make concessions to criticism in minor details.

C. Chronological.

Kepler: De Jesu Christi Servatoris nostri vero anno natalicio. Frankf. 1606. De vero anno quo aeternus Dei Filius humanam naturam in utero benedicitae Virginis Mariae assumpsit. Frcf. 1614.

J. A. Bengel: Ordo Temporum. Stuttgart, 1741, and 1770.

Henr. Sanclemente: De Vulgaris Aerae Emendatione libri quatuor.

C. Ideler: Handbuch der Chronologie. Berlin, 1825–226, 2 vols. By the same: Lehrbuch der Chronologie, 1831

Fr. Münter: Der Stern der Weisen. Kopenhagen, 1827.

K. Wieseler: Chronolog. Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamb. 1843. Eng. trans. by Venables, 2d ed., 1877. Supplemented by his Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien. Gotha, 1869.

Henry Browne: Ordo Saeclorum. London, 1844. Comp. his art. Chronology, in the 3d ed. of Kitto’s “Cycl. of Bib. Lit.”

Sam. F. Jarvis (historiographer of the Prot. Episc. Ch. in the U. S., d. 1851): A Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church. N. York, 1845.

G. Seyffarth: Chronologia sacra, Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr des Herrn. Leipzig, 1846.

Rud. Anger: Der Stern der Weisen und das Geburtsjahr Christi. Leipz. 1847. By the same. Zur Chronologie des Lehramtes Christi. Leipz. 1848.

Henry F. Clinton: Fasti Romani. Oxford, 1845–’50, 2 vols.

Thomas Lewin: Essay on the Chronology of the New Testament. Oxford, 1854. The same: Fasti Sacri (from b.c. 70 to a.d. 70). Lond. 1865.

F. Piper: Das Datum der Geburt Christi, in his “Evangel. Kalender” for 1856, pp. 41 sqq.

Henri Lutteroth: Le recensement de Quirinius en Judée. Paris, 1865 (134 pp.).

Gust. Rösch: Zum Geburtsjahr Jesu, in the “Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theol.” Gotha, 1866, pp. 3–48.

Ch. Ed. Caspari: Chronologisch-Geographische Einleitung in das Leben J. C. Hamb. 1869 (263 pp.). English translation by M. J. Evans. Edinburgh (T. Clark), 1876.

Francis W. Upham: The Wise Men. N. York, 1869 (ch. viii. 145, on Kepler’s Discovery). Star of Our Lord, by the same author. N. Y., 1873.

A. W. Zumpt: Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Leipz. 1869 (306 pp.). He makes much account of the double governorship of Quirinus, Luke 2:2. Comp. Pres. Woolsey in Bibl. Sacra, April, 1870.

Herm. Sevin: Chronologie des Lebens Jesu. Tübingen, 2d. ed., 1874.

Florian Riess: (Jesuit): Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Freiburg i. Br. 1880.

Peter Schegg: (R. C.): Das Todesjahr des Königs Herodes und das Todesjahr Jesu Christi. Against Riess. München, 1882.

Florian Riess: Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi. Reply to Schegg. Freib. im Br. 1883.

Bernhard Matthias: Die römische Grundsteuer und das Vectigalrecht. Erlangen, 1882.

H. Lecoultre: De censu Quiriniano et anno nativitatis Christi secundum Lucam evangelistam Dissertatio. Laussanne, 1883.

§ 15. The Founder of Christianity.

When “the fulness of the time” was come, God sent forth his only-begotten Son, “the Desire of all nations,” to redeem the world from the curse of sin, and to establish an everlasting kingdom of truth, love, and peace for all who should believe on his name.

In Jesus Christ a preparatory history both divine and human comes to its close. In him culminate all the previous revelations of God to Jews and Gentiles; and in him are fulfilled the deepest desires and efforts of both Gentiles and Jews for redemption. In his divine nature, as Logos, he is, according to St. John, the eternal Son of the Father, and the agent in the creation and preservation of the world, and in all those preparatory manifestations of God, which were completed in the incarnation. In his human nature, as Jesus of Nazareth, he is the ripe fruit of the religions growth of humanity, with an earthly ancestry, which St. Matthew (the evangelist of Israel) traces to Abraham, the patriarch of the Jews, and St. Luke (the evangelist of the Gentiles), to Adam, the father of all men. In him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and in him also is realized the ideal of human virtue and piety. He is the eternal Truth, and the divine Life itself, personally joined with our nature; he is our Lord and our God; yet at the same time flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. In him is solved the problem of religion, the reconciliation and fellowship of man with God; and we must expect no clearer revelation of God, nor any higher religious attainment of man, than is already guaranteed and actualized in his person.

But as Jesus Christ thus closes all previous history, so, on the other hand, he begins an endless future. He is the author of a new creation, the second Adam, the father of regenerate humanity, the head of the church, “which is his body, the fulness of him, that filleth all in all.” He is the pure fountain of that stream of light and life, which has since flowed unbroken through nations and ages, and will continue to flow, till the earth shall be full of his praise, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The universal diffusion and absolute dominion of the spirit and life of Christ will be also the completion of the human race, the end of history, and the beginning of a glorious eternity.

It is the great and difficult task of the biographer of Jesus to show how he, by external and internal development, under the conditions of a particular people, age, and country, came to be in fact what he was in idea and destination, and what he will continue to be for the faith of Christendom, the God-Man and Saviour of the world. Being divine from eternity, he could not become God; but as man he was subject to the laws of human life and gradual growth. “He advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.”[96] Though he was the Son of God, “yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”[97] There is no conflict between the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the ideal Christ of faith. The full understanding of his truly human life, by its very perfection and elevation above all other men before and after him, will necessarily lead to an admission of his own testimony concerning his divinity.

“Deep strike thy roots, O heavenly Vine,
Within our earthly sod!

Most human and yet most divine,
The flower of man and God!”

Jesus Christ came into the world under Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor, before the death of king Herod the Great, four years before the traditional date of our Dionysian aera. He was born at Bethlehem of Judaea, in the royal line of David, from Mary, “the wedded Maid and Virgin Mother.” The world was at peace, and the gates of Janus were closed for only the second time in the history of Rome. There is a poetic and moral fitness in this coincidence: it secured a hearing for the gentle message of peace which might have been drowned in the passions of war and the clamor of arms. Angels from heaven proclaimed the good tidings of his birth with songs of praise; Jewish shepherds from the neighboring fields, and heathen sages from the far east greeted the newborn king and Saviour with the homage of believing hearts. Heaven and earth gathered in joyful adoration around the Christ-child, and the blessing of this event is renewed from year to year among high and low, rich and poor, old and young, throughout the civilized world.

The idea of a perfect childhood, sinless and holy, yet truly human and natural, had never entered the mind of poet or historian before; and when the legendary fancy of the Apocryphal Gospels attempted to fill out the chaste silence of the Evangelists, it painted an unnatural prodigy of a child to whom wild animals, trees, and dumb idols bowed, and who changed balls of clay into flying birds for the amusement of his playmates.

The youth of Jesus is veiled in mystery. We know only one, but a very significant fact. When a boy of twelve years he astonished the doctors in the temple by his questions and answers, without repelling them by immodesty and premature wisdom, and filled his parents with reverence and awe by his absorption in the things of his heavenly Father, and yet was subject and obedient to them in all things. Here, too, there is a clear line of distinction between the supernatural miracle of history and the unnatural prodigy of apocryphal fiction, which represents Jesus as returning most learned answers to perplexing questions of the doctors about astronomy, medicine, physics, metaphysics, and hyperphysics.[98]

The external condition and surroundings of his youth are in sharp contrast with the amazing result of his public life. He grew up quietly and unnoticed in a retired Galilean mountain village of proverbial insignificance, and in a lowly carpenter-shop, far away from the city of Jerusalem, from schools and libraries, with no means of instruction save those which were open to the humblest Jew—the care of godly parents, the beauties of nature, the services of the synagogue, the secret communion of the soul with God, and the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which recorded in type and prophecy his own character and mission. All attempts to derive his doctrine from any of the existing schools and sects have utterly failed. He never referred to the traditions of the elders except to oppose them. From the Pharisees and Sadducees he differed alike, and provoked their deadly hostility. With the Essenes he never came in contact. He was independent of human learning and literature, of schools and parties. He taught the world as one who owed nothing to the world. He came down from heaven and spoke, out of the fulness of his personal intercourse with the great Jehovah. He was no scholar, no artist, no orator; yet was he wiser than all sages, he spake as never man spake, and made an impression on his age and all ages after him such as no man ever made or can make. Hence the natural surprise of his countrymen as expressed in the question: “From whence hath this men these things?” “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?”[99]

He began his public ministry in the thirtieth year of his age, after the Messianic inauguration by the baptism of John, and after the Messianic probation in the wilderness—the counterpart of the temptation of the first Adam in Paradise. That ministry lasted only three years—and yet in these three years is condensed the deepest meaning of the history of religion. No great life ever passed so swiftly, so quietly, so humbly, so far removed from the noise and commotion of the world; and no great life after its close excited such universal and lasting interest. He was aware of this contrast: he predicted his deepest humiliation even to the death on the cross, and the subsequent irresistible attraction of this cross, which may be witnessed from day to day wherever his name is known. He who could say, “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto myself,”[100] knew more of the course of history and of the human heart than all the sages and legislators before and after him.

He chose twelve apostles for the Jews and seventy disciples for the Gentiles, not from among the scholars and leaders, but from among the illiterate fishermen of Galilee. He had no home, no earthly possessions, no friends among the mighty and the rich. A few pious women from time to time filled his purse; and this purse was in the bands of a thief and a traitor. He associated with publicans and sinners, to raise them up to a higher and nobler life, and began his reformation among them lower classes, which were despised and neglected by the proud: hierarchy of the day. He never courted the favor of the great, but incurred their hatred and persecution. He never flattered, the prejudices of the age, but rebuked sin and vice among the high and the low, aiming his severest words at the blind leaders of the blind, the self-righteous hypocrites who sat on Moses’ seat. He never encouraged the carnal Messianic hopes of the people, but withdrew when they wished to make him a king, and declared before the representative of the Roman empire that his kingdom was not of this world. He announced to his disciples his own martyrdom, and promised to them in this life only the same baptism of blood. He went about in Palestine, often weary of travel, but never weary of his work of love, doing good to the souls and bodies of men, speaking words of spirit and life, and working miracles of power and mercy.

He taught the purest doctrine, as a direct revelation of his heavenly Father, from his own intuition and experience, and with a power and authority which commanded unconditional trust and obedience. He rose above the prejudices of party and sect, above the superstitions of his age and nation. He addressed the naked heart of man and touched the quick of the conscience. He announced the founding of a spiritual kingdom which should grow from the smallest seed to a mighty tree, and, working like leaven from within, should gradually pervade all nations and countries. This colossal idea, had never entered the imagination of men, the like of which he held fast even in the darkest hour of humiliation, before the tribunal of the Jewish high-priest and the Roman governor, and when suspended as a malefactor on the cross; and the truth of this idea is illustrated by every page of church history and in every mission station on earth.

The miracles or signs which accompanied his teaching are supernatural, but not unnatural, exhibitions of his power over man and nature; no violations of law, but manifestations of a higher law, the superiority of mind over matter, the superiority of spirit over mind, the superiority of divine grace over human nature. They are all of the highest moral and of a profoundly symbolical significance, prompted by pure benevolence, and intended for the good of men; in striking contrast with deceptive juggler works and the useless and absurd miracles of apocryphal fiction. They were performed without any ostentation, with such simplicity and ease as to be called simply his “works.” They were the practical proof of his doctrine and the natural reflex of his wonderful person. The absence of wonderful works in such a wonderful man would be the greatest wonder.

His doctrine and miracles were sealed by the purest and holiest life in private and public. He could challenge his bitterest opponents with the question: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” well knowing that they could not point to a single spot.

At last he completed his active obedience by the passive obedience of suffering in cheerful resignation to the holy will of God. Hated and persecuted by the Jewish hierarchy, betrayed into their hands by Judas, accused by false witnesses, condemned by the Sanhedrin, rejected by the people denied by Peter, but declared innocent by the representative of the Roman law and justice, surrounded by his weeping mother and faithful disciples, revealing in those dark hours by word and silence the gentleness of a lamb and the dignity of a God, praying for his murderers, dispensing to the penitent thief a place in paradise, committing his soul to his heavenly Father he died, with the exclamation: “It is finished!” He died before he had reached the prime of manhood. The Saviour of the world a youth! He died the shameful death of the cross the just for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, a free self, sacrifice of infinite love, to reconcile the world unto God. He conquered sin and death on their own ground, and thus redeemed and sanctified all who are willing to accept his benefits and to follow his example. He instituted the Lord’s Supper, to perpetuate the memory of his death and the cleansing and atoning power of his blood till the end of time.

The third day he rose from the grave, the conqueror of death and hell, the prince of life and resurrection. He repeatedly appeared to his disciples; he commissioned them to preach the gospel of the resurrection to every creature; he took possession of his heavenly throne, and by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit he established the church, which he has ever since protected, nourished, and comforted, and with which he has promised to abide, till he shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead.

This is a meagre outline of the story which the evangelists tell us with childlike simplicity, and yet with more general and lasting effect than could be produced by the highest art of historical composition. They modestly abstained from adding their own impressions to the record of the words and acts of the Master whose “glory they beheld, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Who would not shrink from the attempt to describe the moral character of Jesus, or, having attempted it, be not dissatisfied with the result? Who can empty the ocean into a bucket? Who (we may ask with Lavater) “can paint the glory of the rising sun with a charcoal?” No artist’s ideal comes up to the reality in this case, though his ideals may surpass every other reality. The better and holier a man is, the more he feels his need of pardon, and how far he falls short of his own imperfect standard of excellence. But Jesus, with the same nature as ours and tempted as we are, never yielded to temptation; never had cause for regretting any thought, word, or action; he never needed pardon, or conversion, or reform; he never fell out of harmony with his heavenly Father. His whole life was one unbroken act of self-consecration to the glory of God and the eternal welfare of his fellow-men. A catalogue of virtues and graces, however complete, would give us but a mechanical view. It is the spotless purity and sinlessness of Jesus as acknowledged by friend and foe; it is the even harmony and symmetry of all graces, of love to God and love to man, of dignity and humility of strength and tenderness, of greatness and simplicity, of self-control and submission, of active and passive virtue; it is, in one word, the absolute perfection which raises his character high above the reach of all other men and makes it an exception to a universal rule, a moral miracle in history. It is idle to institute comparisons with saints and sages, ancient or modern. Even the infidel Rousseau was forced to exclaim: “If Socrates lived and died like a sage, Jesus lived and died like a God.” Here is more than the starry heaven above us, and the moral law within us, which filled the soul of Kant with ever-growing reverence and awe. Here is the holy of holies of humanity, here is the very gate of heaven.

Going so far in admitting the human perfection of Christ—and how can the historian do otherwise?—we are driven a step farther, to the acknowledgment of his amazing claims, which must either be true, or else destroy all foundation for admiration and reverence in which he is universally held. It is impossible to construct a life of Christ without admitting its supernatural and miraculous character.

The divinity of Christ, and his whole mission as Redeemer, is an article of faith, and, as such, above logical or mathematical demonstration. The incarnation or the union of the infinite divinity and finite humanity in one person is indeed the mystery of mysteries. “What can be more glorious than God? What more vile than flesh? What more wonderful than God in the flesh?”[101] Yet aside from all dogmatizing which lies outside of the province of the historian, the divinity of Christ has a self-evidencing power which forces itself irresistibly upon the reflecting mind and historical inquirer; while the denial of it makes his person an inexplicable enigma.

It is inseparable from his own express testimony respecting himself, as it appears in every Gospel, with but a slight difference of degree between the Synoptists and St. John. Only ponder over it! He claims to be the long-promised Messiah who fulfilled the law and the prophets, the founder and lawgiver of a new and universal kingdom, the light of the world, the teacher of all nations and ages, from whose authority there is no appeal. He claims to have come into this world for the purpose to save the world from sin—which no merely human being can possibly do. He claims the power to forgive sins on earth; he frequently exercised that power, and it was for the sins of mankind, as he foretold, that he shed his own blood. He invites all men to follow him, and promises peace and life eternal to every one that believes in him. He claims pre-existence before Abraham and the world, divine names, attributes, and worship. He disposes from the cross of places in Paradise. In directing his disciples to baptize all nations, he coordinates himself with the eternal Father and the Divine Spirit, and promises to be with them to the consummation of the world and to come again in glory as the Judge of all men. He, the humblest and meekest of men, makes these astounding pretensions in the most easy and natural way; he never falters, never apologizes, never explains; he proclaims them as self-evident truths. We read them again and again, and never feel any incongruity nor think of arrogance and presumption.

And yet this testimony, if not true, must be downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in his every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent. Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all respects so clear and so sound, is equally out of the question. How could He be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance of his mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately predicted his death on the cross, his resurrection on the third day, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of his Church, the destruction of Jerusalem—predictions which have been literally fulfilled? A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet, as has been well said, would in this case be greater than the hero. It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus.

We are shut up then to the recognition of the divinity of Christ; and reason itself must bow in silent awe before the tremendous word: “I and the Father are one!” and respond with skeptical Thomas: “My Lord and my God!”

This conclusion is confirmed by the effects of the manifestation of Jesus, which far transcend all merely human capacity and power. The history of Christianity, with its countless fruits of a higher and purer life of truth and love than was ever known before or is now known outside of its influence, is a continuous commentary on the life of Christ, and testifies on every page to the inspiration of his holy example. His power is felt on every Lord’s Day from ten thousand pulpits, in the palaces of kings and the huts of beggars, in universities and colleges, in every school where the sermon on the Mount is read, in prisons, in almshouses, in orphan asylums, as well as in happy homes, in learned works and simple tracts in endless succession. If this history of ours has any value at all, it is a new evidence that Christ is the light and life of a fallen world.

And there is no sign that his power is waning. His kingdom is more widely spread than ever before, and has the fairest prospect of final triumph in all the earth. Napoleon at St. Helena is reported to have been struck with the reflection that millions are now ready to die for the crucified Nazarene who founded a spiritual empire by love, while no one would die for Alexander, or Caesar, or himself, who founded temporal empires by force. He saw in this contrast a convincing argument for the divinity of Christ, saying: “I know men, and I tell you, Christ was not a man. Everything about Christ astonishes me. His spirit overwhelms and confounds me. There is no comparison between him and any other being. He stands single and alone.[102] And Goethe, another commanding genius, of very different character, but equally above suspicion of partiality for religion, looking in the last years of his life over the vast field of history, was constrained to confess that “if ever the Divine appeared on earth, it was in the Person of Christ,” and that “the human mind, no matter how far it may advance in every other department, will never transcend the height and moral culture of Christianity as it shines and glows in the Gospels.”

The rationalistic, mythical, and legendary attempts to explain the life of Christ on purely human and natural grounds, and to resolve the miraculous elements either into common events, or into innocent fictions, split on the rock of Christ’s character and testimony. The ablest of the infidel biographers of Jesus now profess the profoundest regard for his character, and laud him as the greatest sage and saint that ever appeared on earth. But, by rejecting his testimony concerning his divine origin and mission, they turn him into a liar; and, by rejecting the miracle of the resurrection, they make the great fact of Christianity a stream without a source, a house without a foundation, an effect without a cause. Denying the physical miracles, they expect us to believe even greater psychological miracles; yea, they substitute for the supernatural miracle of history an unnatural prodigy and incredible absurdity of their imagination. They moreover refute and supersede each other. The history of error in the nineteenth century is a history of self-destruction. A hypothesis was scarcely matured before another was invented and substituted, to meet the same fate in its turn; while the old truth and faith of Christendom remains unshaken, and marches on in its peaceful conquest against sin and error

Truly, Jesus Christ, the Christ of the Gospels, the Christ of history, the crucified and risen Christ, the divine-human Christ, is the most real, the most certain, the most blessed of all facts. And this fact is an ever-present and growing power which pervades the church and conquers the world, and is its own best evidence, as the sun shining in the heavens. This fact is the only solution of the terrible mystery of sin and death, the only inspiration to a holy life of love to God and man, and only guide to happiness and peace. Systems of human wisdom will come and go, kingdoms and empires will rise and fall, but for all time to come Christ will remain “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

§ 16. Chronology of the Life of Christ.

See the Lit. in §14, p. 98, especially Browne, Wieseler, Zumpt, Andrews, and Keim

We briefly consider the chronological dates of the life of Christ.

I. The Year of the Nativity.

—This must be ascertained by historical and chronological research, since there is no certain and harmonious tradition on the subject. Our Christians aera, which was introduced by the Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, and came into general use two centuries later, during the reign of Charlemagne, puts the Nativity Dec. 25, 754 Anno Urbis, that is, after the founding of the city of Rome.[103] Nearly all chronologers agree that this is wrong by at least four years. Christ was born a.u. 750 (or b.c. 4), if not earlier.

This is evident from the following chronological hints in the Gospels, as compared with and confirmed by Josephus and contemporary writers, and by astronomical calculations.

The Death of Herod.

(1) According to Matthew 2:1 (Comp. Luke 1:5, 26), Christ was born “in the days of king Herod” I. or the Great, who died, according to Josephus, at Jericho, a.u. 750, just before the Passover, being nearly seventy years of age, after a reign of thirty-seven years[104] This date has been verified by the astronomical calculation of the eclipse of the moon, which took place March 13, a.u. 750, a few days before Herod’s death.[105] Allowing two months or more for the events between the birth of Christ and the murder of the Innocents by Herod, the Nativity must be put back at least to February or January, a.u. 750 (or b.c. 4), if not earlier.

Some infer from the slaughter of the male children in Bethlehem, “from two years old and under,”[106] that Christ must have been born two years before Herod’s death; but he counted from the time when the star was first seen by the Magi (Matt. 2:7), and wished to make sure of his object. There is no good reason to doubt the fact itself, and the flight of the holy family to Egypt, which is inseparably connected with it. For, although the horrible deed is ignored by Josephus, it is in keeping with the well-known cruelty of Herod, who from jealousy murdered Hyrcanus, the grandfather of his favorite wife, Mariamne; then Mariamne herself, to whom he was passionately attached; her two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, and, only five days before his death, his oldest son, Antipater; and who ordered all the nobles assembled around him in his last moments to be executed after his decease, so that at least his death might be attended by universal mourning. For such a monster the murder of one or two dozen infants in a little town[107] was a very small matter, which might easily have been overlooked, or, owing to its connection with the Messiah, purposely ignored by the Jewish historian. But a confused remembrance of it is preserved in the anecdote related by Macrobius (a Roman grammarian and probably a heathen, about a.d. 410), that Augustus, on hearing of Herod’s murder of “boys under two years” and of his own son, remarked “that it was better to be Herod’s swine than his son.”[108] The cruel persecution of Herod and the flight into Egypt were a significant sign of the experience of the early church, and a source of comfort in every period of martyrdom.

The Star of the Magi.

(2) Another chronological hint of Matthew 2:1–4, 9, which has been verified by astronomy, is the Star of the Wise Men, which appeared before the death of Herod, and which would naturally attract the attention of the astrological sages of the East, in connection with the expectation of the advent of a great king among the Jews. Such a belief naturally arose from Balaam’s prophecy of “the star that was to rise out of Jacob” (Num. 24:17), and from the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel, and widely prevailed in the East since the dispersion of the Jews.[109]

The older interpretation of that star made it either a passing meteor, or a strictly miraculous phenomenon, which lies beyond astronomical calculation, and was perhaps visible to the Magi alone. But Providence usually works through natural agencies, and that God did so in this case is made at least very probable by a remarkable discovery in astronomy. The great and devout Kepler observed in the years 1603 and 1604 a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which was made more rare and luminous by the addition of Mars in the month of March, 1604. In the autumn of the same year (Oct. 10) he observed near the planets Saturn, Jupiter and Mars a new (fixed) star of uncommon brilliancy, which appeared “in triumphal pomp, like, some all-powerful monarch on a visit to the metropolis of his realm.” It was blazing and glittering “like the most beautiful and glorious torch ever seen when driven by a strong wind,” and seemed to him to be “an exceedingly wonderful work of God.”[110] His genius perceived that this phenomenon must lead to the determination of the year of Christ’s birth, and by careful calculation he ascertained that a similar conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, with the later addition of Mars, and probably some, extraordinary star, took place repeatedly a.u. 747 and 748 in the sign of the Pisces.

It is worthy of note that Jewish astrologers ascribe a special signification to the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of the Pisces, and connect it with the advent of the Messiah.[111]

The discovery of Kepler was almost forgotten till the nineteenth century, when it was independently confirmed by several eminent astronomers, Schubert of Petersburg, Ideler and Encke of Berlin, and Pritchard of London. It is pronounced by Pritchard to be “as certain as any celestial phenomenon of ancient date.” It certainly makes the pilgrimage of the Magi to Jerusalem and Bethlehem more intelligible. “The star of astrology has thus become a torch of chronology” (as Ideler says), and an argument for the truthfulness of the first Gospel.[112]

It is objected that Matthew seems to mean a single star (ajsthvr, comp. Matt. 2:9) rather than a combination of stars (a[stron). Hence Dr. Wieseler supplements the calculation of Kepler and Ideler by calling to aid a single comet which appeared from February to April, a.u. 750, according to the Chinese astronomical tables, which Pingré and Humboldt acknowledge as historical. But this is rather far-fetched and hardly necessary; for that extraordinary star described by Kepler, or Jupiter at its most luminous appearance, as described by Pritchard, in that memorable conjunction, would sufficiently answer the description of a single star by Matthew, which must at all events not be pressed too literally; for the language of Scripture on the heavenly bodies is not scientific, but phenomenal and popular. God condescended to the astrological faith of the Magi, and probably made also an internal revelation to them before, as well as after the appearance of the star (comp. 2:12).

If we accept the result of these calculations of astronomers we are brought to within two years of the year of the Nativity, namely, between a.u. 748 (Kepler) and 750 (Wieseler). The difference arises, of course, from the uncertainty of the time of departure and the length of the journey of the Magi.

As this astronomical argument is often very carelessly and erroneously stated, and as the works of Kepler and Ideler are not easy of access, at least in America (I found them in the Astor Library), I may be permitted to state the case more at length. John Kepler wrote three treatises on the year of Christ’s birth, two in Latin (1606 and 1614), one in German (1613), in which he discusses with remarkable learning the various passages and facts bearing on that subject. They are reprinted in Dr. Ch. Frisch’s edition of his Opera Omnia (Frcf. et Erlang. 1858–’70, 8 vols.), vol. IV. pp. 175 sqq.; 201 sqq.; 279 sqq. His astronomical observations on the constellation which led him to this investigation are fully described in his treatises De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarii (Opera, vol. II. 575 sqq.), and Phenomenon singulare seu Mercurius in Sole (ibid. II. 801 sqq.). Prof. Ideler, who was himself an astronomer and chronologist, in his Handbuch der mathemat. und technischen Chronologie (Berlin, 1826, vol. III. 400 sqq.), gives the following clear summary of Kepler’s and of his own observations:

“It is usually supposed that the star of the Magi was, if not a fiction of the imagination, some meteor which arose accidentally, or ad hoc. We will belong neither to the unbelievers nor the hyper-believers (weder zu den Ungläubigen noch zu den Uebergläubigen), and regard this starry phenomenon with Kepler to be real and well ascertainable by calculation, namely, as a conjunction of the Planets Jupiter and Saturn. That Matthew speaks only of a star (ajsthvr), not a constellation (a[stron), need not trouble us, for the two words are not unfrequently confounded. The just named great astronomer, who was well acquainted with the astrology of his and former times, and who used it occasionally as a means for commending astronomy to the attention and respect of the laity, first conceived this idea when he observed the conjunction of the two planets mentioned at the close of the year 1603. It took place Dec. 17. In the spring following Mars joined their company, and in autumn 1604 still another star, one of those fixed star-like bodies (einer jener fixstern-artigen Körper) which grow to a considerable degree of brightness, and then gradually disappear without leaving a trace behind. This star stood near the two planets at the eastern foot of Serpentarius (Schlangenträger), and appeared when last seen as a star of the first magnitude with uncommon splendor. From month to month it waned in brightness, and at the end of 1605 was withdrawn from the eyes which at that time could not yet be aided by good optical instruments. Kepler wrote a special work on this Stella nova in pede Serpentarii (Prague, 1606), and there he first set forth the view that the star of the Magi consisted in a conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and some other extraordinary star, the nature of which he does not explain more fully.” Ideler then goes on to report (p. 404) that Kepler, with the imperfect tables at his disposal, discovered the same conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn a.u. 747 in June, August and December, in the sign of the Pisces; in the next year, February and March, Mars was added, and probably another extraordinary star, which must have excited the astrologers of Chaldaea to the highest degree. They probably saw the new star first, and then the constellation.

Dr. Münter, bishop of Seeland, in 1821 directed new attention to this remarkable discovery, and also to the rabbinical commentary of Abarbanel on Daniel, according to which the Jewish astrologers expected a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of the Pisces before the advent of the Messiah, and asked the astronomers to reinvestigate this point. Since then Schubert of Petersburg (1823), Ideler and Encke of Berlin (1826 and 1830), and more recently Pritchard of London, have verified Kepler’s calculations.

Ideler describes the result of his calculation (vol. II. 405) thus: I have made the calculation with every care …. The results are sufficiently remarkable. Both planets [Jupiter and Saturn] came in conjunction for the first time a.u. 747, May 20, in the 20th degree of Pisces. They stood then on the heaven before sunrise and were only one degree apart. Jupiter passed Saturn to the north. In the middle of September both came in opposition to the sun at midnight in the south. The difference in longitude was one degree and a half. Both were retrograde and again approached each other. On the 27th of October a second conjunction took place in the sixteenth degree of the Pisces, and on the 12th of November, when Jupiter moved again eastward, a third in the fifteenth degree of the same sign. In the last two constellations also the difference in longitude was only about one degree, so that to a weak eye both planets might appear as one star. If the Jewish astrologers attached great expectations to conjunction of the two upper planets in the sign of the Pisces, this one must above all have appeared to them as most significant.”

In his shorter Lehrbuch der Chronologie, which appeared Berlin 1831 in one vol., pp. 424–431, Ideler gives substantially the same account somewhat abridged, but with slight changes of the figures on the basis of a new calculation with still better tables made by the celebrated astronomer Encke, who puts the first conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn a.u. 747, May 29th, the second Sept. 30th, the third Dec. 5th. See the full table of Encke, p. 429.

We supplement this account by an extract from an article on the Star of the Wise Men by the Rev. Charles Pritchard, M.A., Hon. Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, who made a fresh calculation of the constellation in a.u. 747, from May to December, and published the results in Memoirs of Royal Ast. Society, vol. xxv., and in Smith’s “Bible Dictionary,” p. 3108, Am. ed., where he says: “At that time [end of Sept., b.c. 7] there can be no doubt Jupiter would present to astronomers, especially in so clear an atmosphere, a magnificent spectacle. It was then at its most brilliant apparition, for it was at its nearest approach both to the sun and to the earth. Not far from it would be seen its duller and much less conspicuous companion, Saturn. This glorious spectacle continued almost unaltered for several days, when the planets again slowly separated, then came to a halt, when, by reassuming a direct motion, Jupiter again approached to a conjunction for a third time with Saturn, just as the Magi may be supposed to have entered the Holy City. And, to complete the fascination of the tale, about an hour and a half after sunset, the two planets might be seen from Jerusalem, hanging as it were in the meridian, and suspended over Bethlehem in the distance. These celestial phenomena thus described are, it will be seen, beyond the reach of question, and at the first impression they assuredly appear to fulfil the conditions of the Star of the Magi.” If Pritchard, nevertheless, rejects the identity of the constellation with the single star of Matthew, it is because of a too literal understanding of Matthew’s language, that the star proh’gen aujtouv” and ejstavqh ejpavnw, which would make it miraculous in either case.

The Fifteenth Year of Tiberius.

(3) Luke 3:1, 23, gives us an important and evidently careful indication of the reigning powers at the time when John the Baptist and Christ entered upon their public ministry, which, according to Levitical custom, was at the age of thirty.[113] John the Baptist began his ministry “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,”[114] and Jesus, who was only about six months younger than John (comp. Luke 1:5, 26), was baptized and began to teach when he was “about thirty years of age.”[115] Tiberius began to reign jointly with Augustus, as “collega imperii,” a.u. 764 (or, at all events, in the beginning of 765), and independently, Aug. 19, a.u. 767 (a.d. 14); consequently, the fifteenth year of his reign was either a.u. 779, if we count from the joint reign (as Luke probably did, using the more general term hJgemoniva rather than monarciva or basileiva[116] or 782, if we reckon from the independent reign (as was the usual Roman method).[117]

Now, if we reckon back thirty years from a.u. 779 or 782, we come to a.u. 749 or 752 as the year of John’s birth, which preceded that of Christ about six months. The former date (749) is undoubtedly to be preferred, and agrees with Luke’s own statement that Christ was born under Herod (Luke 1:5, 26).[118]

Dionysius probably (for we have no certainty on the subject) calculated from the independent reign of Tiberius; but even that would not bring us to 754, and would involve Luke in contradiction with Matthew and with himself.[119]

The other dates in Luke 3:1 generally agree with this result, but are less definite. Pontius Pilate was ten years governor of Judaea, from a.d. 26 to 36. Herod Antipas was deposed by Caligula, a.d. 39. Philip, his brother, died a.d. 34. Consequently, Christ must have died before a.d. 34, at an age of thirty-three, if we allow three years for his public ministry.

The Census of Quirinius.

(4) The Census of Quirinius Luke 2:2.[120] Luke gives us another chronological date by the incidental remark that Christ was born about the time of that census or enrolment, which was ordered by Caesar Augustus, and which was “the first made when Quirinius (Cyrenius) was governor [enrolment] of Syria.”[121] He mentions this fact as the reason for the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. The journey of Mary makes no difficulty, for (aside from the intrinsic propriety of his company for protection) all women over twelve years of age (and slaves also) were subject in the Roman empire to a head-tax, as well as men over fourteen) till the age of sixty-five.[122] There is some significance in the coincidence of the birth of the King of Israel with the deepest humiliation of Israel. and its incorporation in the great historical empire of Rome.

But the statement of Luke seems to be in direct conflict with the fact that the governorship and census of Quirinius began a.d. 6, i.e., ten years after the birth of Christ.[123] Hence many artificial interpretations.[124] But this difficulty is now, if not entirely removed, at least greatly diminished by archaeological and philological research independent of theology. It has been proved almost to a demonstration by Bergmann, Mommsen, and especially by Zumpt, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria—first, a.u. 750 to 753, or b.c. 4 to 1 (when there happens to be a gap in our list of governors of Syria), and again, a.u. 760–765 (a.d. 6–11). This double legation is based upon a passage in Tacitus,[125] and confirmed by an old monumental inscription discovered between the Villa Hadriani and the Via Tiburtina.[126] Hence Luke might very properly call the census about the time of Christ’s birth “the first” (prwvth) under Quirinius, to distinguish it from the second and better known, which he himself mentions in his second treatise on the history of the origin of Christianity (Acts 5:37). Perhaps the experience of Quirinius as the superintendent of the first census was the reason why he was sent to Syria a second time for the same purpose.

There still remain, however, three difficulties not easily solved: (a) Quirinius cannot have been governor of Syria before autumn a.u. 750 (b.c. 4), several months after Herod’s death (which occurred in March, 750), and consequently after Christ’s birth; for we know from coins that Quintilius Varus was governor from a.u. 748 to 750 (b.c. 6–4), and left his post after the death of Herod.[127] (b) A census during the first governorship of Quirinius is nowhere mentioned but in Luke. (c) A Syrian governor could not well carry out a census in Judaea during the lifetime of Herod, before it was made a Roman province (i.e., a.u. 759).

In reply to these objections we may say: (a) Luke did not intend to give an exact, but only an approximate chronological statement, and may have connected the census with the well-known name of Quirinius because be completed it, although it was begun under a previous administration. (b) Augustus ordered several census populi between a.u. 726 and 767, partly for taxation, partly for military and statistical purposes;[128] and, as a good statesman and financier, he himself prepared a rationarium or breviarium totius imperii, that is, a list of all the resources of the empire, which was read, after his death, in the Senate.129 (c) Herod was only a tributary king (rex sosius), who could exercise no act of sovereignty without authority from the emperor. Judaea was subject to taxation from the time of Pompey, and it seems not to have ceased with the accession of Herod. Moreover, towards the end of his life he lost the favor of Augustus, who wrote him in anger that “whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he would now use him as his subject.”130

It cannot, indeed, be proven by direct testimony of Josephus or the Roman historians, that Augustus issued a decree for a universal census, embracing all the Provinces (“that all the world,” i.e., the Roman world, “should be taxed,” Luke 2:1), but it is in itself by no means improbable, and was necessary to enable him to prepare his breviarium totius imperii.131 In the nature of the case, it would take several years to carry out such a decree, and its execution in the provinces would be modified according to national customs. Zumpt assumes that Sentius Saturninus,132 who was sent as governor to Syria a.u. 746 (b.c. 9), and remained there till 749 (b.c. 6), began a census in Judaea with a view to substitute a head tax in money for the former customary tribute in produce; that his successor, Quintilius Varus (b.c. 6–4), continued it, and that Quirinius (b.c. 4) completed the census. This would explain the confident statement of Tertullian, which he must have derived from some good source, that enrolments were held under Augustus by Sentius Saturninus in Judaea.133 Another, but less probable view is that Quirinius was sent to the East as special commissioner for the census during the administration of his predecessor. In either case Luke might call the census “the first” under Quirinius, considering that he finished the census for personal taxation or registration according to the Jewish custom of family registers, and that afterwards he alone executed the second census for the taxation of property according to the Roman fashion.

The problem is not quite solved; but the establishment of the fact that Quirinius was prominently connected with the Roman government in the East about the time of the Nativity, is a considerable step towards the solution, and encourages the hope of a still better solution in the future.134

The Forty-Six Years of Building of Herod’s Temple.

(5) St. John, 2:20, furnishes us a date in the remark of the Jews, in the first year of Christ’s ministry: “Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?”

We learn from Josephus that Herod began the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the eighteenth year of his reign, i.e., a.u. 732, if we reckon from his appointment by the Romans (714), or a.u. 735, if we reckon from the death of Antigonus and the conquest of Jerusalem (717).135 The latter is the correct view; otherwise Josephus would contradict himself, since, in another passage, he dates the building from the fifteenth year, of Herod’s reign.136 Adding forty-six years to 735, we have the year a.u. 781 (a.d. 27) for the first year of Christ’s ministry; and deducting thirty and a half or thirty-one years from 781, we come back to a.u. 750 (b.c. 4) as the year of the Nativity.

The Time of the Crucifixion.

(6) Christ was crucified under the consulate of the two Gemini (i.e., C. Rubellius Geminus and C. Fufius Geminus), who were consuls a.u. 782 to 783 (a.d. 28 to 29). This statement is made by Tertullian, in connection with an elaborate calculation of the time of Christ’s birth and passion from the seventy weeks of Daniel.137 He may possibly have derived it from some public record in Rome. He erred in identifying the year of Christ’s passion with the first year of his ministry (the 15th year of Tiberius, Luke 3:1). Allowing, as we must, two or three years for his public ministry, and thirty-three years for his life, we reach the year 750 or 749 as the year of the Nativity.

Thus we arrive from these various incidental notices of three Evangelists, and the statement of Tertullian essentially at the same conclusion, which contributes its share towards establishing the credibility of the gospel history against the mythical theory. Yet in the absence of a precise date, and in view of uncertainties in calculation, there is still room for difference of opinion between the years a.u. 747 (b.c. 7), as the earliest, and a.u. 750 (b.c. 4), as the latest, possible date for the year of Christ’s birth. The French Benedictines, Sanclemente, Münter, Wurm, Ebrard, Jarvis, Alford, Jos. A. Alexander, Zumpt, Keim, decide for a.u. 747; Kepler (reckoning from the conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars in that year), Lardner, Ideler, Ewald, for 748; Petavius, Ussher, Tillemont, Browne, Angus, Robinson, Andrews, McClellan, for 749; Bengel, Wieseler, Lange, Lichtenstein, Anger, Greswell, Ellicott, Plumptre, Merivale, for 750.

II. The Day of the Nativity.

—The only indication of the season of our Saviour’s birth is the fact that the Shepherds were watching their flocks in the field at that time, Luke 2:8. This fact points to any other season rather than winter, and is therefore not favorable to the traditional date, though not conclusive against it. The time of pasturing in Palestine (which has but two seasons, the dry and the wet, or summer and winter) begins, according to the Talmudists, in March, and lasts till November, when the herds are brought in from the fields, and kept under shelter till the close of February. But this refers chiefly to pastures in the wilderness, far away from towns and villages,138 and admits of frequent exceptions in the close neighborhood of towns, according to the character of the season. A succession of bright days in December and January is of frequent occurrence in the East, as in Western countries. Tobler, an experienced traveller in the Holy Land, says that in Bethlehem the weather about Christmas is favorable to the feeding of flocks and often most beautiful. On the other hand strong and cold winds often prevail in April, and. explain the fire mentioned John 18:18.

No certain conclusion can be drawn from the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and to Egypt; nor from the journey of the Magi. As a rule February, is the best time for travelling in Egypt, March the best in the Sinaitic Peninsula, April and May, and next to it autumn, the best in Palestine; but necessity knows no rule.

The ancient tradition is of no account here, as it varied down to the fourth century. Clement of Alexandria relates that some regarded the 25th Pachon. (i.e. May 20), others the 24th or 25th Pharmuthi (April 19 or 20), as the day of Nativity.

(1) The traditional 25th of December is defended by Jerome, Chrysostom, Baronius, Lamy, Ussher, Petavius, Bengel (Ideler), Seyffarth and Jarvis. It has no historical authority beyond the fourth century, when the Christmas festival was introduced first in Rome (before a.d. 360), on the basis of several Roman festivals (the Saturnalia, Sigillaria, Juvenalia, Brumalia, or Dies natalis Invicti Solis), which were held in the latter part of December in commemoration of the golden age of liberty and equality, and in honor of the sun, who in the winter solstice is, as it were, born anew and begins his conquering march. This phenomenon in nature was regarded as an appropriate symbol of the appearance of the Sun of Righteousness dispelling the long night of sin and error. For the same reason the summer solstice (June 24) was afterwards selected for the festival of John the Baptist, as the fittest reminder of his own humble self-estimate that he must decrease, while Christ must increase (John 3:30). Accordingly the 25th of March was chosen for the commemoration of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, and the 24th of September for that of the conception of Elizabeth.139

(2) The 6th of January has in its favor an older tradition (according to Epiphanius and Cassianus), and is sustained by Eusebius. It was celebrated in the East from the third century as the feast of the Epiphany, in commemoration of the Nativity as well as of Christ’s baptism, and afterwards of his manifestation to the Gentiles (represented by the Magi).

(3) Other writers have selected some day in February (Hug, Wieseler, Ellicott), or March (Paulus, Winer), or April (Greswell), or August (Lewin), or September (Lightfoot, who assumes, on chronological grounds, that Christ was born on the feast of Tabernacles, as he died on the Passover and sent the Spirit on Pentecost), or October (Newcome). Lardner puts the birth between the middle of August and the middle of November; Browne December 8; Lichtenstein in summer; Robinson leaves it altogether uncertain.

III. The Duration of Christ’s Life.

—This is now generally confined to thirty-two or three years. The difference of one or two years arises from the different views on the length of his public ministry. Christ died and rose again in the full vigor of early manhood and so continues to live in the memory of the church. The decline and weakness of old age is inconsistent with his position as the Renovator and Saviour of mankind.

Irenaeus, otherwise (as a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John) the most trustworthy witness of apostolic traditions among the fathers, held the untenable opinion that Christ attained to the ripe age of forty or fifty years and taught over ten years (beginning with the thirtieth), and that he thus passed through all the stages of human life, to save and sanctify “old men” as well as “infants and children and boys and youths.”140 He appeals for this view to tradition dating from St. John141 and supports it by an unwarranted inference from the loose conjecture of the Jews when, surprised at the claim of Jesus to have existed before Abraham was born, they asked him: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”142 A similar inference from another passage, where the Jews speak of the “forty-six years” since the temple of Herod began to be constructed, while Christ spoke of the, temple his body (John 2:20), is of course still less conclusive.

IV. Duration of Christ’s Public Ministry.

—It began with the baptism by John and ended with the crucifixion. About the length of the intervening time there are (besides the isolated and decidedly erroneous view of Irenaeus) three theories, allowing respectively one, two, or three years and a few months, and designated as the bipaschal, tripaschal, and quadripaschal schemes, according to the number of Passovers. The Synoptists mention only the last Passover during the public ministry of our Lord, at which he was crucified, but they intimate that he was in Judaea more than once.143 John certainly mentions three Passovers, two of which (the first and the last) Christ did attend,144 and perhaps a fourth, which he also attended.145

(1) The bipaschal scheme confines the public ministry to one year and a few weeks or months. This was first held by the Gnostic sect of the Valentinians (who connected it with their fancy about thirty aeons), and by several fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian) and perhaps by Origen and Augustine (who express themselves doubtfully). The chief argument of the fathers and those harmonists who follow them, is derived from the prophecy of “the acceptable year of the Lord,” as quoted by Christ,146 and from the typical meaning of the paschal lamb, which must be of “one year” and without blemish.147 Far more important is the argument drawn by some modern critics from the silence of the synoptical Gospels concerning the other Passovers.148 But this silence is not in itself conclusive, and must yield to the positive testimony of John, which cannot be conformed to the bipaschal scheme.149 Moreover, it is simply impossible to crowd the events of Christ’s life, the training of the Twelve, and the development of the hostility of the Jews, into one short year.

(2) The choice therefore lies between the tripaschal and the quadripaschal schemes. The decision depends chiefly on the interpretation of the unnamed “feast of the Jews,” John 5:1, whether it was a Passover, or another feast; and this again depends much (though not exclusively) on a difference of reading (the feast, or a feast).150 The parable of the barren fig-tree, which represents the Jewish people, has been used as an argument in favor of a three years’ ministry: “Behold, these three year I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none.”151 The three years are certainly significant; but according to Jewish reckoning two and a half years would be called three years. More remote is the reference to the prophetic announcement of Daniel 9:27: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The tripaschal theory is more easily reconciled with the synoptical Gospels, while the quadripaschal theory leaves more room for arranging the discourses and miracles of our Lord, and has been adopted by the majority of harmonists.152

But even if we extend the public ministry to three years, it presents a disproportion between duration and effect without a parallel in history and inexplicable on purely natural grounds. In the language of an impartial historian, “the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists. This has indeed been the wellspring of whatever is best and purest in the Christian life.”153

V. The Date of the Lord’s Death.

—The day of the week on which Christ suffered on the cross was a Friday,154 during the week of the Passover, in the month of Nisan, which was the first of the twelve lunar months of the Jewish year, and included the vernal equinox. But the question is whether this Friday was the 14th, or the 15th of Nisan, that is, the day before the feast or the first day of the feast, which lasted a week. The Synoptical Gospels clearly decide for the 15th, for they all say (independently) that our Lord partook of the paschal supper on the legal day, called the “first day of unleavened bread,”155 that is on the evening of the 14th, or rather at the beginning of the 15th (the paschal lambs being slain “between the two evenings,” i.e. before and after sunset, between 3 and 5 p.m. of the 14th).156 John, on the other hand, seems at first sight to point to the 14th, so that the death of our Lord would very nearly have coincided with the slaying of the paschal lamb.157 But the three or four passages which look in that direction can, and on closer examination, must be harmonized with the Synoptical statement, which admits only of one natural interpretation.158 It seems strange, indeed, that, the Jewish priests should have matured their bloody counsel in the solemn night of the Passover, and urged a crucifixion on a great festival, but it agrees, with the satanic wickedness of their crime.159 Moreover it is on the other hand equally difficult to explain that they, together with the people, should have remained about the cross till late in the afternoon of the fourteenth, when, according to the law, they were to kill the paschal lamb and prepare for the feast; and that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, with the pious women, should have buried the body of Jesus and so incurred defilement at that solemn hour.

The view here advocated is strengthened by astronomical calculation, which shows that in a.d. 30 the probable year of the crucifixion, the 15th of Nisan actually fell on a Friday (April 7);and this was the case only once more between the years a.d. 28 and 36, except perhaps also in 33. Consequently Christ must have been Crucified a.d. 30.160

To sum up the results, the following appear to us the most probable dates in the earthly life of our Lord:

Birth A.U. 750 (Jan.?) or 749 (Dec.?) B.C. 4 or 5.
Baptism A.U. 780 (Jan.?) A.D. 27.
Length of Public Ministry (three years and three or four months) A.U. 780–783 A.D. 27–30.
Crucifixion A.U. 783 (15th of Nisan) A.D. 30 (April 7)

§ 17. The Land and the People.

Literature.

I. The geographical and descriptive works on the Holy Land by Reland (1714), Robinson (1838 and 1856), Ritter (1850–1855), Raumer (4th ed. 1860), Tobler (several monographs from 1849 to 1869), W. M. Thomson (revised ed. 1880), Stanley (1853, 6th ed. 1866), Tristram (1864), Schaff (1878; enlarged ed. 1889), Guérin (1869, 1875, 1880).

See Tobler’s Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae (Leipz. 1867) and the supplementary lists of more recent works by Ph. Wolff in the “Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, “ 1868 and 1872, and by Socin in the “Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins,” 1878, p. 40, etc.

II. The “Histories of New Testament Times” (Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, a special department of historical theology recently introduced), by Schneckburger (1862), Hausrath (1868 sqq.), and Schürer (1874).

See Lit. in § 8, p. 56.

There is a wonderful harmony between the life of our Lord as described by the Evangelists, and his geographical and historical environment as known to us from contemporary writers, and illustrated and confirmed by modern discovery and research. This harmony contributes not a little to the credibility of the gospel history. The more we come to understand the age and country in which Jesus lived, the more we feel, in reading the Gospels, that we are treading on the solid ground of real history illuminated by the highest revelation from heaven. The poetry of the canonical Gospels, if we may so call their prose, which in spiritual beauty excels all poetry, is not (like that of the Apocryphal Gospels) the poetry of human fiction—“no fable old, no mythic lore, nor dream of bards and seers;” it is the poetry of revealed truth, the poetry of the sublimest facts the poetry of the infinite wisdom and love of God which, ever before had entered the imagination of man, but which assumed human flesh and blood in Jesus of Nazareth and solved through his life and work the deepest problem of our existence.

The stationary character of Oriental countries and peoples enables us to infer from their present aspect and condition what they were two thousand years ago. And in this we are aided by the multiplying discoveries which make even stones and mummies eloquent witnesses of the past. Monumental evidence appeals to the senses and overrules the critical conjectures and combinations of unbelieving skepticism, however ingenious and acute they may be. Who will doubt the history of the Pharaohs when it can be read in the pyramids and sphinxes, in the ruins of temples and rock-tombs, in hieroglyphic inscriptions and papyrus rolls which antedate the founding of Rome and the exodus of Moses and the Israelites? Who will deny the biblical records of Babylon and Nineveh after these cities have risen from the grave of centuries to tell their own story through cuneiform inscriptions, eagle-winged lions and human-headed bulls, ruins of temples and palaces disentombed from beneath the earth? We might as well erase Palestine from the map and remove it to fairy-land, as to blot out the Old and New Testament from history and resolve them into airy myths and legends.161

The Land.

Jesus spent his life in Palestine. It is a country of about the size of Maryland, smaller than Switzerland, and not half as large as Scotland,162 but favored with a healthy climate, beautiful scenery, and great variety and fertility of soil, capable of producing fruits of all lands from the snowy north to the tropical south; isolated from other countries by desert, mountain and sea, yet lying in the centre of the three continents of the eastern hemisphere and bordering on the Mediterranean highway of the historic nations of antiquity, and therefore providentially adapted to develop not only the particularism of Judaism, but also the universalism of Christianity. From little Phoenicia the world has derived the alphabet, from little Greece philosophy and art, from little Palestine the best of all—the true religion and the cosmopolitan Bible. Jesus could not have been born at any other time than in the reign of Caesar Augustus, after the Jewish religion, the Greek civilization, and the Roman government had reached their maturity; nor in any other land than Palestine, the classical soil of revelation, nor among any other people than the Jews, who were predestinated and educated for centuries to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. In his infancy, a fugitive from the wrath of Herod, He passed through the Desert (probably by the short route along the Mediterranean coast) to Egypt and back again; and often may his mother have spoken to him of their brief sojourn in “the land of bondage,” out of which Jehovah had led his people, by the mighty arm of Moses, across the Red Sea and through “the great and terrible wilderness” into the land of promise. During his forty days of fasting “in the wilderness” he was, perhaps, on Mount Sinai communing with the spirits of Moses and Elijah, and preparing himself in the awfully eloquent silence of that region for the personal conflict with the Tempter of the human race, and for the new legislation of liberty from the Mount of Beatitudes.163 Thus the three lands of the Bible, Egypt, the cradle of Israel, the Desert, its school and playground, and Canaan, its final home, were touched and consecrated by “those blessed feet which, eighteen centuries ago, were nailed for our advantage on the bitter cross.”

He travelled on his mission of love through Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea; he came as far north as mount Hermon, and once he crossed beyond the land of Israel to the Phoenician border and healed the demonized daughter of that heathen mother to whom he said, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt.”

We can easily follow him from place to place, on foot or on horseback, twenty or thirty miles a day, over green fields and barren rocks over hill and dale among flowers and thistles, under olive and fig-trees, pitching our tent for the night’s rest, ignoring the comforts of modern civilization, but delighting in the unfading beauties of God’s nature, reminded at every step of his wonderful dealings with his people, and singing the psalms of his servants of old.

We may kneel at his manger in Bethlehem, the town of Judaea where Jacob buried his beloved Rachel, and a pillar, now a white mosque, marks her grave; where Ruth was rewarded for her filial devotion, and children may still be seen gleaning after the reapers in the grainfields, as she did in the field of Boaz; where his ancestor, the poet-king, was born and called from his father’s flocks to the throne of Israel; where shepherds are still watching the sheep as in that solemn night when the angelic host thrilled their hearts with the heavenly anthem of glory to God, and peace on earth to men of his good pleasure; where the sages from the far East offered their sacrifices in the name of future generations of heathen converts; where Christian gratitude has erected the oldest church in Christendom, the “Church of the Nativity,” and inscribed on the solid rock in the “Holy Crypt,” in letters of silver, the simple but pregnant inscription: “Hic de Virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est.” When all the surroundings correspond with the Scripture narrative, it is of small account whether the traditional grotto of the Nativity is the identical spot—though pointed out as such it would seem already in the middle of the second century.164

We accompany him in a three days’ journey from Bethlehem to Nazareth, his proper home, where he spent thirty silent years of his life in quiet preparation for his public work, unknown in his divine character to his neighbors and even the members of his own household (John 7:5), except his saintly parents. Nazareth is still there, a secluded, but charmingly located mountain village, with narrow, crooked and dirty streets, with primitive stone houses where men, donkeys and camels are huddled together, surrounded by cactus hedges and fruitful gardens of vines, olive, fig, and pomegranates, and favorably distinguished from the wretched villages of modern Palestine by comparative industry, thrift, and female beauty; the never failing “Virgin’s Fountain,” whither Jesus must often have accompanied his mother for the daily supply of water, is still there near the Greek Church of the Annunciation, and is the evening rendezvous of the women and maidens, with their water-jars gracefully poised on the head or shoulder, and a row of silver coins adorning their forehead; and behind the village still rises the hill, fragrant with heather and thyme, from which he may often have cast his eye eastward to Gilboa, where Jonathan fell, and to the graceful, cone-like Tabor—the Righi of Palestine—northward to the lofty Mount Hermon—the Mont Blanc of Palestine—southward to the fertile plain of Esdraëlon—the classic battle-ground of Israel—and westward to the ridge of Carmel, the coast of Tyre and Sidon and the blue waters of the Mediterranean sea—the future highway of his gospel of peace to mankind. There he could feast upon the rich memories of David and Jonathan, Elijah and Elisha, and gather images of beauty for his lessons of wisdom. We can afford to smile at the silly superstition which points out the kitchen of the Virgin Mary beneath the Latin Church of the Annunciation, the suspended column where she received the angel’s message, the carpenter shop of Joseph and Jesus, the synagogue in which he preached on the acceptable year of the Lord, the stone table at which he ate with his disciples, the Mount of Precipitation two miles off, and the stupendous monstrosity of the removal of the dwelling-house of Mary by angels in the air across the sea to Loretto in Italy! These are childish fables, in striking contrast with the modest silence of the Gospels, and neutralized by the rival traditions of Greek and Latin monks; but nature in its beauty is still the same as Jesus saw and interpreted it in his incomparable parables, which point from nature to nature’s God and from visible symbols to eternal truths.165

Jesus was inaugurated into his public ministry by his baptism in the fast-flowing river Jordan, which connects the Old and New Covenant. The traditional spot, a few miles from Jericho, is still visited by thousands of Christian pilgrims from all parts of the world at the Easter season, who repeat the spectacle of the multitudinous baptisms of John, when the people came “from Jerusalem and all Judaea and all the region round about the Jordan” to confess their sins and to receive his water-baptism of repentance.

The ruins of Jacob’s well still mark the spot where Jesus sat down weary of travel, but not of his work of mercy and opened to the poor woman of Samaria the well of the water of life and instructed her in the true spiritual worship of God; and the surrounding landscape, Mount Gerizim, and Mount Ebal, the town of Shechem, the grain-fields whitening to the harvest, all illustrate and confirm the narrative in the fourth chapter of John; while the fossil remnant of the Samaritans at Nablous (the modern Shechem) still perpetuates the memory of the paschal sacrifice according to the Mosaic prescription, and their traditional hatred of the Jews.

We proceed northward to Galilee where Jesus spent the most popular part of his public ministry and spoke so many of his undying words of wisdom and love to the astonished multitudes. That province was once thickly covered with forests, cultivated fields, plants and trees of different climes, prosperous villages and an industrious population.166 The rejection of the Messiah and the Moslem invasion have long since turned that paradise of nature into a desolate wilderness, yet could not efface the holy memories and the illustrations of the gospel history. There is the lake with its clear blue waters, once whitened with ships sailing from shore to shore, and the scene of a naval battle between the Romans and the Jews, now utterly forsaken, but still abounding in fish, and subject to sudden violent storms, such as the one which Jesus commanded to cease; there are the hills from which he proclaimed the Sermon on the Mount, the Magna Charta of his kingdom, and to which he often retired for prayer; there on the western shore is the plain of Gennesaret, which still exhibits its natural fertility by the luxuriant growth of briers and thistles and the bright red magnolias overtopping them; there is the dirty city of Tiberias, built by Herod Antipas, where Jewish rabbis still scrupulously search the letter of the Scriptures without finding Christ in them; a few wretched Moslem huts called Mejdel still indicate the birth-place of Mary Magdalene, whose penitential tears and resurrection joys are a precious legacy of Christendom. And although the cities of Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazim, “where most of his mighty works were done” have utterly disappeared from the face of the earth, and their very sites are disputed among scholars, thus verifying to the letter the fearful prophecy of the Son of Man,167 yet the ruins of Tell Hum and Kerazeh bear their eloquent testimony to the judgment of God for neglected privileges, and the broken columns and friezes with a pot of manna at Tell Hum are probably the remains of the very synagogue which the good Roman centurion built for the people of Capernaum, and in which Christ delivered his wonderful discourse on the bread of life from heaven.168

Caesarea Philippi, formerly and now called Banias (or Paneas, Paneion, from the heathen sanctuary of Pan), at the foot of Hermon, marks the northern termination of the Holy Land and of the travels of the Lord, and the boundary-line between the Jews and the Gentiles; and that Swiss-like, picturesque landscape, the most beautiful in Palestine, in full view of the fresh, gushing source of the Jordan, and at the foot of the snow-crowned monarch of Syrian mountains seated on a throne of rock, seems to give additional force to Peter’s fundamental confession and Christ’s prophecy of his Church universal built upon the immovable rock of his eternal divinity.

The closing scenes of the earthly life of our Lord and the beginning of his heavenly life took place in Jerusalem and the immediate neighborhood, where every spot calls to mind the most important events that ever occurred or can occur in this world. Jerusalem, often besieged and destroyed, and as often rebuilt “on her own heap,” is indeed no more the Jerusalem of Herod, which lies buried many feet beneath the rubbish and filth of centuries; even the site of Calvary is disputed, and superstition has sadly disfigured and obscured the historic associations.169 “Christ is not there, He is risen.”170 There is no more melancholy sight in the world than the present Jerusalem as contrasted with its former glory, and with the teeming life of Western cities; and yet so many are the sacred memories clustering around it and perfuming the very air, that even Rome must yield the palm of interest to the city which witnessed the crucifixion and the resurrection. The Herodian temple on Mount Moriah, once the gathering place of pious Jews from all the earth, and enriched with treasures of gold and silver which excited the avarice of the conquerors, has wholly disappeared, and “not one stone is left upon another,” in literal fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy;171 but the massive foundations of Solomon’s structure around the temple area still bear the marks of the Phoenician workmen; the “wall of wailing” is moistened with the tears of the Jews who assemble there every Friday to mourn over the sins and misfortunes of their forefathers; and if we look down from Mount Olivet upon Mount Moriah and the Moslem Dome of the Rock, the city even now presents one of the most imposing, as well as most profoundly affecting sights on earth. The brook Kedron, which Jesus crossed in that solemn night after the last Passover, and Gethsemane with its venerable olive-trees and reminiscences of the agony, and Mount Olivet from which he rose to heaven, are still there, and behind it the remnant of Bethany, that home of peace and holy friendship which sheltered him the last nights before the crucifixion. Standing on that mountain with its magnificent view, or at the turning point of the road from Jericho and Bethany, and looking over Mount Moriah and the holy city, we fully understand why the Saviour wept and exclaimed, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate!

Thus the Land and the Book illustrate and confirm each other. The Book is still full of life and omnipresent in the civilized world; the Land is groaning under the irreformable despotism of the “unspeakable” Turk, which acts like a blast of the Sirocco from the desert. Palestine lies under the curse of God. It is at best a venerable ruin “in all the imploring beauty of decay,” yet not without hope of some future resurrection in God’s own good time. But in its very desolation it furnishes evidence for the truth of the Bible. It is “a fifth Gospel,” engraven upon rocks.172

The People.

Is there a better argument for Christianity than the Jews? Is there a more patent and a more stubborn fact in history than that intense and unchangeable Semitic nationality with its equally intense religiosity? Is it not truly symbolized by the bush in the desert ever burning and never consumed? Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes, Titus, Hadrian exerted their despotic power for the extermination of the Jews; Hadrian’s edict forbade circumcision and all the rites of their religion; the intolerance of Christian rulers treated them for ages with a sort of revengeful cruelty, as if every Jew were personally responsible for the crime of the crucifixion. And, behold, the race still lives as tenaciously as ever, unchanged and unchangeable in its national traits, an omnipresent power in Christendom. It still produces, in its old age, remarkable men of commanding influence for good or evil in the commercial, political, and literary world; we need only recall such names as Spinoza, Rothschild, Disraeli, Mendelssohn, Heine, Neander. If we read the accounts of the historians and satirists of imperial Rome about the Jews in their filthy quarter across the Tiber, we are struck by the identity of that people with their descendants in the ghettos of modern Rome, Frankfurt, and New York. Then they excited as much as they do now the mingled contempt and wonder of the world; they were as remarkable then for contrasts of intellectual beauty and striking ugliness, wretched poverty and princely wealth; they liked onions and garlic, and dealt in old clothes, broken glass, and sulphur matches, but knew how to push themselves from poverty and filth into wealth and influence; they were rigid monotheists and scrupulous legalists who would strain out a gnat and swallow a camel; then as now they were temperate, sober, industrious, well regulated and affectionate in their domestic relations and careful for the religious education of their children. The majority were then, as they are now, carnal descendants of Jacob, the Supplanter, a small minority spiritual children of Abraham, the friend of God and father of the faithful. Out of this gifted race have come, at the time of Jesus and often since, the bitterest foes and the warmest friends of Christianity.

Among that peculiar people Jesus spent his earthly life, a Jew of the Jews, yet in the highest sense the Son of Man, the second Adam, the representative Head and Regenerator of the whole race. For thirty years of reserve and preparation he hid his divine glory and restrained his own desire to do good, quietly waiting till the voice of prophecy after centuries of silence announced, in the wilderness of Judaea and on the banks of the Jordan, the coming of the kingdom of God, and startled the conscience of the people with the call to repent. Then for three years he mingled freely with his countrymen. Occasionally he met and healed Gentiles also, who were numerous in Galilee; he praised their faith the like of which he had not found in Israel, and prophesied that many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.173 He conversed with a woman of Samaria, to the surprise of his disciples, on the sublimest theme, and rebuked the national prejudice of the Jews by holding up a good Samaritan as a model for imitation.174 It was on the occasion of a visit from some “Greeks,” shortly before the crucifixion, that he uttered the remarkable prophecy of the universal attraction of his cross.175 But these were exceptions. His mission, before the resurrection, was to the lost sheep of Israel.176

He associated with all ranks of Jewish society, attracting the good and repelling the bad, rebuking vice and relieving misery, but most of his time he spent among the middle classes who constituted the bone and sinew of the nation, the farmers and workingmen of Galilee, who are described to us as an industrious, brave and courageous race, taking the lead in seditious political movements, and holding out to the last moment in the defence of Jerusalem.177 At the same time they were looked upon by the stricter Jews of Judaea as semi-heathens and semi-barbarians; hence the question, “Can any good come out of Nazareth, and “Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.”178 He selected his apostles from plain, honest, unsophisticated fishermen who became fishers of men and teachers of future ages. In Judaea he came in contact with the religious leaders, and it was proper that he should close his ministry and establish his church in the capital of the nation.

He moved among the people as a Rabbi (my Lord) or a Teacher, and under this name he is usually addressed.179 The Rabbis were the intellectual and moral leaders of the nation, theologians, lawyers, and preachers, the expounders of the law, the keepers of the conscience, the regulators of the daily life and conduct; they were classed with Moses and the prophets, and claimed equal reverence. They stood higher than the priests who owed their position to the accident of birth, and not to personal merit. They coveted the chief seats in the synagogues and at feasts; they loved to be greeted in the markets and to be called of men, “Rabbi, Rabbi.” Hence our Lord’s warning: “Be not ye called ’Rabbi:’ for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”180 They taught in the temple, in the synagogue, and in the schoolhouse (Bethhamidrash), and introduced their pupils, sitting on the floor at their feet, by asking, and answering questions, into the intricacies of Jewish casuistry. They accumulated those oral traditions which were afterwards embodied in the Talmud, that huge repository of Jewish wisdom and folly. They performed official acts gratuitously.181 They derived their support from an honorable trade or free gifts of their pupils, or they married into rich families. Rabbi Hillel warned against making gain of the crown (of the law), but also against excess of labor, saying, “Who is too much given to trade, will not become wise.” In the book of Jesus Son of Sirach (which was written about 200 b.c.) a trade is represented as incompatible with the vocation of a student and teacher,182 but the prevailing sentiment at the time of Christ favored a combination of intellectual and physical labor as beneficial to health and character. One-third of the day should be given to study one-third to prayer, one third to work. “Love manual labor,” was the motto of Shemaja, a teacher of Hillel. “He who does not teach his son a trade,” said Rabbi Jehuda, “is much the same as if he taught him to be a robber.” “There is no trade,” says the Talmud, “which can be dispensed with; but happy is he who has in his parents the example of a trade of the more excellent sort.”183

Jesus himself was not only the son of a carpenter, but during his youth he worked at that trade himself.184 When he entered upon his public ministry the zeal for God’s house claimed all his time and strength, and his modest wants were more than supplied by a few grateful disciples from Galilee, so that something was left for the benefit of the poor.185 St. Paul learned the trade of tentmaking, which was congenial to his native Cilicia, and derived from it his support even as an apostle, that he might relieve his congregations and maintain a noble independence.186

Jesus availed himself of the usual places of public instruction in the synagogue and the temple, but preached also out of doors, on the mountain, at the, sea-side, and wherever the people assembled to hear him. “I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.187 Paul likewise taught in the synagogue wherever he had an opportunity on his missionary journeys.188 The familiar mode of teaching was by disputation, by asking and answering questions on knotty points, of the law, by parables and sententious sayings, which easily lodged in the memory; the Rabbi sat on a chair, the pupils stood or sat on the floor at his feet.189 Knowledge of the Law of God was general among the Jews and considered the most important possession. They remembered the commandments better than their own name.190 Instruction began in early childhood in the family and was carried on in the school and the synagogue. Timothy learned the sacred Scriptures on the knees of his mother and grandmother.191 Josephus boasts, at the expense of his superiors, that when only fourteen years of age he had such an exact knowledge of the law that he was consulted by the high priest and the first men of Jerusalem.192 Schoolmasters were appointed in every town, and children were taught to read in their sixth or seventh year, but writing was probably a rare accomplishment.193

The synagogue was the local, the temple the national centre of religious and social life; the former on the weekly Sabbath (and also on Monday and Thursday), the latter on the Passover and the other annual festivals. Every town had a synagogue, large cities had many, especially Alexandria and Jerusalem.194 The worship was very simple: it consisted of prayers, singing, the reading of sections from the Law and the Prophets in Hebrew, followed by a commentary and homily in the vernacular Aramaic. There was a certain democratic liberty of prophesying, especially outside of Jerusalem. Any Jew of age could read the Scripture lessons and make comments on invitation of the ruler of the synagogue. This custom suggested to Jesus the most natural way of opening his public ministry. When he returned from his baptism to Nazareth, “he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the roll of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the roll and found the place where it was written (61:1, 2) ’The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; he hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’ And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, ’To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.’ And all bare witness unto him, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth: and they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?”195

On the great festivals he visited from his twelfth year the capital of the nation where the Jewish religion unfolded all its splendor and attraction. Large caravans with trains of camels and asses loaded with provisions and rich offerings to the temple, were set in motion from the North and the South, the East and the West for the holy city, “the joy of the whole earth;” and these yearly pilgrimages, singing the beautiful Pilgrim Psalms (Ps, 120 to 134), contributed immensely to the preservation and promotion of the common faith, as the Moslem pilgrimages to Mecca keep up the life of Islam. We may greatly reduce the enormous figures of Josephus, who on one single Passover reckoned the number of strangers and residents in Jerusalem at 2,700,000 and the number of slaughtered lambs at 256,500, but there still remains the fact of the vast extent and solemnity of the occasion. Even now in her decay, Jerusalem (like other Oriental cities) presents a striking picturesque appearance at Easter, when Christian pilgrims from the far West mingle with the many-colored Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Latins, Spanish and Polish Jews, and crowd to suffocation the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. How much more grand and dazzling must this cosmopolitan spectacle have been when the priests (whose number Josephus estimates at 20,000) with the broidered tunic, the fine linen girdle, the showy turban, the high priests with the ephod of blue and purple and scarlet, the breastplate and the mitre, the Levites with their pointed caps, the Pharisees with their broad phylacteries and fringes, the Essenes in white dresses and with prophetic mien, Roman soldiers with proud bearing, Herodian courtiers in oriental pomposity, contrasted with beggars and cripples in rags, when pilgrims innumerable, Jews and proselytes from all parts of the empire, “Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans, and Arabians,”196 all wearing their national costume and speaking a Babel of tongues, surged through the streets, and pressed up to Mount Moriah where “the glorious temple rear’d her pile, far off appearing like a mount of alabaster, topp’d with golden spires” and where on the fourteenth day of the first month columns of sacrificial smoke arose from tens of thousands of paschal lambs, in historical commemoration of the great deliverance from the land of bondage, and in typical prefiguration of the still greater redemption from the slavery of sin and death.197

To the outside observer the Jews at that time were the most religious people on earth, and in some sense this is true. Never was a nation so ruled by the written law of God; never did a nation so carefully and scrupulously study its sacred books, and pay greater reverence to its priests and teachers. The leaders of the nation looked with horror and contempt upon the unclean, uncircumcised Gentiles, and confirmed the people in their spiritual pride and conceit. No wonder that the Romans charged the Jews with the odium generis humani.

Yet, after all, this intense religiosity was but a shadow of true religion. It was a praying corpse rather than a living body. Alas! the Christian Church in some ages and sections presents a similar sad spectacle of the deceptive form of godliness without its power. The rabbinical learning and piety bore the same relation to the living oracles of God as sophistic scholasticism to Scriptural theology, and Jesuitical casuistry to Christian ethics. The Rabbis spent all their energies in “fencing” the law so as to make it inaccessible. They analyzed it to death. They surrounded it with so many hair-splitting distinctions and refinements that the people could not see the forest for the trees or the roof for the tiles, and mistook the shell for the kernel.198 Thus they made void the Word of God by the traditions of men.199 A slavish formalism and mechanical ritualism was substituted for spiritual piety, an ostentatious sanctimoniousness for holiness of character, scrupulous casuistry for genuine morality, the killing letter for the life-giving spirit, and the temple of God was turned into a house of merchandise.

The profanation and perversion of the spiritual into the carnal, and of the inward into the outward, invaded even the holy of holies of the religion of Israel, the Messianic promises and hopes which run like a golden thread from the protevangelium in paradise lost to the voice of John the Baptist pointing to the Lamb of God. The idea of a spiritual Messiah who should crush the serpent’s head and redeem Israel from the bondage of sin, was changed into the conception of a political deliverer who should re-establish the throne of David in Jerusalem, and from that centre rule over the Gentiles to the ends of the earth. The Jews of that time could not separate David’s Son, as they called the Messiah, from David’s sword, sceptre and crown. Even the apostles were affected by this false notion, and hoped to secure the chief places of honor in that great revolution; hence they could not understand the Master when he spoke to them of his, approaching passion and death.200

The state of public opinion concerning the Messianic expectations as set forth in the Gospels is fully confirmed by the preceding and contemporary Jewish literature, as the Sibylline Books (about b.c. 140), the remarkable Book of Enoch (of uncertain date, probably from b.c. 130–30), the Psalter of Solomon (b.c. 63–48), the Assumption of Moses, Philo and Josephus, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Fourth Book of Esdras.201 In all of them the Messianic kingdom, or the kingdom of God, is represented as an earthly paradise of the Jews, as a kingdom of this world, with Jerusalem for its capital. It was this popular idol of a pseudo-Messiah with which Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, when he showed him all the kingdoms of the world; well knowing that if he could convert him to this carnal creed, and induce him to abuse his miraculous power for selfish gratification, vain ostentation, and secular ambition, he would most effectually defeat the scheme of redemption. The same political aspiration was a powerful lever of the rebellion against the Roman yoke which terminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, and it revived again in the rebellion of Bar-Cocheba only to end in a similar disaster.

Such was the Jewish religion at the time of Christ. He was the only teacher in Israel who saw through the hypocritical mask to the rotten heart. None of the great Rabbis, no Hillel, no Shammai, no Gamaliel attempted or even conceived of a reformation; on the contrary, they heaped tradition upon tradition and accumulated the talmudic rubbish of twelve large folios and 2947 leaves, which represents the anti-Christian petrifaction of Judaism; while the four Gospels have regenerated humanity and are the life and the light of the civilized world to this day.

Jesus, while moving within the outward forms of the Jewish religion of his age, was far above it and revealed a new world of ideas. He, too, honored the law of God, but by unfolding its deepest spiritual meaning and fulfilling it in precept and example. Himself a Rabbi, he taught as one having direct authority from God, and not as the scribes. How he arraigned those hypocrites seated on Moses’ seat, those blind leaders of the blind, who lay heavy burdens on men’s shoulders without touching them with their finger; who shut the kingdom of heaven against men, and will not enter themselves; who tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin, and leave undone the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel; who are like unto whited sepulchres which outwardly appear beautiful indeed, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. But while he thus stung the pride of the leaders, he cheered and elevated the humble and lowly. He blessed little children, he encouraged the poor, he invited the weary, he fed the hungry he healed the sick, he converted publicans and sinners, and laid the foundation strong and deep, in God’s eternal love, for a new society and a new humanity. It was one of the sublimest as well as loveliest moments in the life of Jesus when the disciples asked him, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? and when he called a little child, set him in the midst of them and said, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”202 And that other moment when he thanked his heavenly Father for revealing unto babes the things of the kingdom which were hid from the wise, and invited all that labor and are heavy laden to come to him for rest.203

He knew from the beginning that he was the Messiah of God and the King of Israel. This consciousness reached its maturity at his baptism when he received the Holy Spirit without measure.204 To this conviction he clung unwaveringly, even in those dark hours of the apparent failure of his cause, after Judas had betrayed him, after Peter, the confessor and rock-apostle, had denied him, and everybody had forsaken him. He solemnly affirmed his Messiahship before the tribunal of the Jewish highpriest; he assured the heathen representative of the Roman empire that he was a king, though not of this world, and when hanging on the cross he assigned to the dying robber a place in his kingdom.205 But before that time and in the days of his greatest popularity he carefully avoided every publication and demonstration which might have encouraged the prevailing idea of a political Messiah and an uprising of the people. He chose for himself the humblest of the Messianic titles which represents his condescension to our common lot, while at the same time it implies his unique position as the representative head of the human family, as the ideal, the perfect, the universal, the archetypal Man. He calls himself habitually “the Son of Man” who “hath not where to lay his head,” who “came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many,” who “hath power to forgive sins,” who “came to seek and to save that which was lost.”206 When Peter made the great confession at Caesarea Philippi, Christ accepted it, but immediately warned him of his approaching passion and death, from which the disciple shrunk in dismay.207 And with the certain expectation of his crucifixion, but also of his triumphant resurrection on the third day, he entered in calm and sublime fortitude on his last journey to Jerusalem which “killeth the prophets,” and nailed him to the cross as a false Messiah and blasphemer. But in the infinite wisdom and mercy of God the greatest crime in history was turned into the greatest blessing to mankind.

We must conclude then that the life and work of Christ, while admirably adapted to the condition and wants of his age and people, and receiving illustration and confirmation from his environment, cannot be explained from any contemporary or preceding intellectual or moral resources. He learned nothing from human teachers. His wisdom was not of this world. He needed no visions and revelations like the prophets and apostles. He came directly from his great Father in heaven, and when he spoke of heaven he spoke of his familiar home. He spoke from the fullness of God dwelling in him. And his words were verified by deeds. Example is stronger than precept. The wisest sayings remain powerless until they are incarnate in a living person. It is the life which is the light of men. In purity of doctrine and holiness of character combined in perfect harmony, Jesus stands alone, unapproached and unapproachable. He breathed a fresh life from heaven into his and all subsequent ages. He is the author of a new moral creation.

Jesus and Hillel.—The infinite elevation of Christ above the men of his time and nation, and his deadly conflict with the Pharisees and scribes are so evident that it seems preposterous and absurd to draw a parallel between him and Hillel or any other Rabbi. And yet this has been done by some modern Jewish Rabbis, as Geiger, Grätz, Friedlander, who boldly affirm, without a shadow of historical proof, that Jesus was a Pharisee, a pupil of Hillel, and indebted to him for his highest moral principles. By this left-handed compliment they mean to depreciate his originality. Abraham Geiger (d. 1874) says, in his Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte (Breslau, 2d ed. 1865, vol. I. p. 117): “Jesus war ein Jude, ein pharisäischer Jude mit galiläischer Färbung, ein Mann der die Hofnungen der Zeit theilte und diese Hoffnungen in sich erfüllt glaubte. Einen neuen Gedanken sprach er keineswegs aus [!], auch brach er nicht etwa die Schranken der Nationalität …. Er hob nicht im Entferntesten etwas vom Judenthum auf; er war ein Pharisäer, der auch in den Wegen Hillels ging.” This view is repeated by Rabbi Dr. M. H. Friedlander, in his Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaite n und Amoräer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Talmuds (Brünn, 1879, p. 32): “Jesus, oder Jeschu, war der Sohn eines Zimmermeisters, Namens Josef, aus Nazareth. Seine Mutter hiess Mirjam oder Maria. Selbst der als conservativer Katholik [sic!] wie als bedeutender Gelehrter bekannte Ewald nennt ihn ’Jesus den Sohn Josef’,…. Wenn auch Jesus’ Gelehrsamkeit nicht riesig war, da die Galiläer auf keiner hohen Stufe der Cultur standen, so zeichnete er sich doch durch Seelenadel, Gemüthlichkeit und Herzensgü te vortheilhaft aus. Hillel I. scheint sein Vorbild und Musterbild gewesen zu sein; denn der hillelianische Grundsatz: ’Was dir nicht recht ist, füge, deinen Nebenmenschen nicht zu,’ war das Grundprincip seiner Lehren.” Renan makes a similar assertion in his Vie de Jésus (Chap. III. p. 35), but with considerable qualifications: “Par sa pauvreté humblement supportée, par la douceur de son caractère, par l’opposition qu’il faisait aux hypocrites et aux prêtres, Hillel fut le vrai maître de Jésus, s’il est permis de parler de maître, quand il s’agit d’une si haute originalité.“ This comparison has been effectually disposed of by such able scholars as Dr. Delitzsch, in his valuable pamphlet Jesus und Hillel (Erlangen, 3d revised ed. 1879, 40 pp.); Ewald, V. 12–48 (Die Schule Hillel’s und deren Geqner); Keim I. 268–272; Schürer, p. 456; and Farrar, Life of Christ, II. 453–460. All these writers come to the same conclusion of the perfect independence and originality of Jesus. Nevertheless it is interesting to examine the facts in the case.

Hillel and Shammai are the most distinguished among the Jewish Rabbis. They were contemporary founders of two rival schools of rabbinical theology (as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus of two schools of scholastic theology). It is strange that Josephus does not mention them, unless he refers to them under the Hellenized names of Sameas and Pollion; but these names agree better with Shemaja and Abtalion, two celebrated Pharisees and teachers of Hillel and Shammai; moreover he designates Sameas as a disciple of Pollion. (See Ewald, v. 22–26; Schürer, p. 455). The Talmudic tradition has obscured their history and embellished it with many fables.

Hillel I. or the Great was a descendant of the royal family of David, and born at Babylon. He removed to Jerusalem in great poverty, and died about a.d. 10. He is said to have lived 120 years, like Moses, 40 years without learning, 40 years as a student, 40 years as a teacher. He was the grandfather of the wise Gamaliel in whose family the presidency of the Sanhedrin was hereditary for several generations. By his burning zeal for knowledge, and his pure, gentle and amiable character, he attained the highest renown. He is said to have understood all languages, even the unknown tongues of mountains, hills, valleys, trees, wild and tame beasts, and demons. He was called “the gentle, the holy, the scholar of Ezra.” There was a proverb: “Man should be always as meek as Hillel, and not quick-tempered as Shammai.” He differed from Rabbi Shammai by a milder interpretation of the law, but on some points, as the mighty question whether it was right or wrong to eat an egg laid on a Sabbath day, he took the more rigid view. A talmudic tract is called Beza, The Egg, after this famous dispute. What a distance from him who said: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: so then the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Many wise sayings, though partly obscure and of doubtful interpretation, are attributed to Hillel in the tract Pirke Aboth (which is embodied in the Mishna and enumerates, in ch. 1, the pillars of the legal traditions from Moses down to the destruction of Jerusalem). The following are the best:

“Be a disciple of Aaron, peace-loving and peace-making; love men, and draw them to the law.”

“Whoever abuses a good name (or, is ambitious of aggrandizing his name) destroys it.”

“Whoever does not increase his knowledge diminishes it.”

“Separate not thyself from the congregation, and have no confidence in thyself till the day of thy death.”

“If I do not care for my soul, who will do it for me? If I care only for my own soul, what am I? If not now, when then?”

“Judge not thy neighbor till thou art in his situation.”

“Say not, I will repent when I have leisure, lest that leisure should never be thine.”

“The passionate man will never be a teacher.”

“In the place where there is not a man, be thou a man.”

Yet his haughty Pharisaism is clearly seen in this utterance: “No uneducated man easily avoids sin; no common person is pious.” The enemies of Christ in the Sanhedrin said the same (John 7:49): “This multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed.” Some of his teachings are of doubtful morality, e.g. his decision that, in view of a vague expression in Deut. 24:1, a man might put away his wife “even if she cooked his dinner badly.” This is, however, softened down by modern Rabbis so as to mean: “if she brings discredit on his home.”

Once a heathen came to Rabbi Shammai and promised to become a proselyte if he could teach him the whole law while he stood on one leg. Shammai got angry and drove him away with a stick. The heathen went with the same request to Rabbi Hillel, who never lost his temper, received him courteously and gave him, while standing on one leg, the following effective answer:

Do not to thy neighbor what is disagreeable to thee. This is the whole Law; all the rest is commentary: go and do that.” (See Delitzsch, p. 17; Ewald, V. 31, Comp. IV. 270).

This is the wisest word of Hillel and the chief ground of a comparison with Jesus. But

  1. It is only the negative expression of the positive precept of the gospel, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and of the golden rule, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, even so do ye also to them”(Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31). There is a great difference between not doing any harm, and doing good. The former is consistent with selfishness and every sin which does not injure our neighbor. The Saviour, by presenting God’s benevolence (Matt. 7:11) as the guide of duty, directs us to do to our neighbor all the good we can, and he himself set the highest example of self-denying love by sacrificing his life for sinners.
  2. It is disconnected from the greater law of supreme love to God, without which true love to our neighbor is impossible. “On these two commandments,” combined and inseparable, hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:37–40).
  3. Similar sayings are found long before Hillel, not only in the Pentateuch and the Book of Tobith 4:15: (o} misei’” mhdeni; poihvsh/“, “Do that to no man which thou hatest”), but substantially even among the heathen (Confucius, Buddha, Herodotus, Isocrates, Seneca, Quintilian), but always either in the negative form, or with reference to a particular case or class; e.g. Isocrates, Ad Demonic. c. 4: “Be such towards your parents as thou shalt pray thy children shall be towards thyself;” and the same In Aeginet. c. 23: “That you would be such judges to me as you would desire to obtain for yourselves.” See Wetstein on Matt. 7:12 (Nov. Test. I. 341 sq.). Parallels to this and other biblical maxims have been gathered in considerable number from the Talmud and the classics by Lightfoot, Grotius, Wetstein, Deutsch, Spiess, Ramage; but what are they all compared with the Sermon on the Mount? Moreover, si duo idem dicunt, non est idem. As to the rabbinical parallels, we must remember that they were not committed to writing before the second century, and that, Delitzsch says (Ein Tag in Capernaum, p. 137), “not a few sayings of Christ, circulated by Jewish Christians, reappeared anonymously or under false names in the Talmuds and Midrashim.”
  4. No amount of detached words of wisdom constitute an organic system of ethics any, more than a heap of marble blocks constitute a palace or temple; and the best system of ethics is unable to produce a holy life, and is worthless without it.

We may admit without hesitation that Hillel was “the greatest and best of all Pharisees” (Ewald), but he was far inferior to John the Baptist; and to compare him with Christ is sheer blindness or folly. Ewald calls such comparison “utterly perverse” (grundverkehrt, v. 48). Farrar remarks that the distance between Hillel and Jesus is “a distance absolutely immeasurable, and the resemblance of his teaching to that of Jesus is the resemblance of a glow-worm to the sun” (II. 455). “The fundamental tendencies of both,” says Delitzsch (p. 23), “are as widely apart as he and earth. That of Hillel is legalistic, casuistic, and nationally contracted; that of Jesus is universally religious, moral and human. Hillel lives and moves in the externals, Jesus in the spirit of the law.” He was not even a reformer, as Geiger and Friedlander would make him, for what they adduce as proofs are mere trifles of interpretation, and involve no new principle or idea.

Viewed as a mere human teacher, the absolute originality of Jesus consists in this, “that his words have touched the hearts of all men in all ages, and have regenerated the moral life of the world” (Farrar, II. 454). But Jesus is far more than a Rabbi, more than a sage and saint more than a reformer, more than a benefactor; he is the author of the true religion, the prophet, priest and king, the renovator, the Saviour of men, the founder of a spiritual kingdom as vast as the race and as long as eternity.

§ 18. Apocryphal Traditions.

We add some notes of minor interest connected with the history of Christ outside of the only authentic record in the Gospel.

I. The Apocryphal Sayings of our Lord.

The canonical Gospels contain all that is necessary for us to know about the words and deeds of our Lord, although many more might have been recorded (John 20:30; 21:25). Their early composition and reception in the church precluded the possibility of a successful rivalry of oral tradition. The extra-biblical sayings of our Lord are mere fragments, few in number, and with one exception rather unimportant, or simply variations of genuine words.

They have been collected by Fabricius, in Codex Apocr. N. T., I pp. 321–335; Grabe: Spicilegium SS. Patrum, ed. alt. I. 12 sqq., 326 sq.; Koerner: De sermonibus Christi ajgravfoi” (Lips. 1776); Routh, in Reliq. Sacrae, vol. I. 9–12, etc.; Rud. Hofmann, in Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen (Leipz. 1851, § 75, pp. 317–334); Bunsen, in Anal. ante-Nic. I. 29 sqq.; Anger, in Synops. Evang. (1852); Westcott: Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, Append. C. (pp. 446 sqq. of the Boston ed. by Hackett); Plumptre, in Ellicott’s Com. for English Readers, I. p. xxxiii.; J. T. Dodd: Sayings ascribed to our Lord by the Fathers (1874); E. B. Nicholson: The Gospel according to the Hebrews (Lond. 1879, pp. 143–162). Comp. an essay of Ewald in his “Jahrbücher der Bibl. Wissenschaft,” VI. 40 and 54 sqq., and Geschichte Christus’, p. 288. We avail ourselves chiefly of the collections of Hofmann, Westcott, Plumptre, and Nicholson.

(1) “It is more blessed to give than to receive.“ Quoted by Paul, Acts 20:35. Comp. Luke 6:30, 31; also Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. c. 2, h[dion didovnte” h] lambavnonte”, “more gladly giving than receiving.” This is unquestionably authentic, pregnant with rich meaning, and shining out like a lone star all the more brilliantly. It is true in the highest sense of the love of God and Christ. The somewhat similar sentences of Aristotle, Seneca, and Epicurus, as quoted by Plutarch (see the passages in Wetstein on Acts 20:35), savor of aristocratic pride, and are neutralized by the opposite heathen maxim of mean selfishness: “Foolish is the giver, happy the receiver.” Shakespeare may have had the sentence in his mind when he put into the mouth of Portia the golden words:

“The quality of mercy is not strained,

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath: it is twice blessed;

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes;

’Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown.”

(2) “And on the same day Jesus saw a man working at his craft on the Sabbath-day, and He said unto him, ’O man, if thou knowest what thou doest, then art thou blessed; but if thou knowest not, then art thou accursed, and art a transgressor of the Law.’ “ An addition to Luke 6:4, in Codex D. or Bezae (in the University library at Cambridge), which contains several remarkable additions. See Tischendorf’s apparatus in ed. VIII. Luc. 6:4, and Scrivener, lntrod. to Criticism of the N. T. p. 8. ejpikatavrato” is used John 7:49 (text. rec.) by the Pharisees of the people who know not the law (also Gal. 3:10, 13 in quotations from the O. T.); parabavth” tou’ novmou by Paul (Rom. 2:25, 27; Gal. 2:18) and James (2:9, 11). Plumptre regards the narrative as authentic, and remarks that “it brings out with a marvellous force the distinction between the conscious transgression of a law recognized as still binding, and the assertion of a higher law as superseding the lower. Comp. also the remarks of Hofmann, l.c. p. 318.

(3) “But ye seek (or, in the imperative, seek ye, zhtei’te) to increase from little, and (not) from greater to be less.“ An addition in Codex D. to Matt 20:28. See Tischendorf. Comp. Luke 14:11; John 5:44. Westcott regards this as a genuine fragment. Nicholson inserts “not,” with the Curetonian Syriac, D; all other authorities omit it. Juvencus has incorporated the passage in his poetic Hist. Evang. III. 613 sqq., quoted by Hofmann, p. 319.

(4) “Be ye trustworthy money-changers, or, proved bankers (trapezi’tai dovkimoi); i.e. expert in distinguishing the genuine coin from the counterfeit. Quoted by Clement of Alexandria (several times), Origen (in Joann, xix.), Eusebius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others. Comp. 1 Thess. 5:21: “Prove all things, hold fast the good,” and the parable of the talents, Matt. 25:27. Delitzsch, who with many others regards this maxim as genuine, gives it the meaning: Exchange the less valuable for the more valuable, esteem sacred coin higher than common coin, and highest of all the one precious pearl of the gospel.(Ein Tag in Capernaum, p. 136.) Renan likewise adopts it as historical, but explains it in an Ebionite and monastic sense as an advice of voluntary poverty. “Be ye good bankers (soyez de bons banquiers), that is to say: Make good investments for the kingdom of God, by giving your goods to the poor, according to the ancient proverb (Prov. 19:17): ’He that hath pity upon the poor, lendeth to the Lord’ “ (Vie de Jésus, ch. XI. p. 180, 5th Par. ed.).

[(5) “The Son of God says,(?) ’Let us resist all iniquity, and hold it in abhorrence.’ “ From the Epistle of Barnabas, c. 4. This Epistle, though incorporated in the Codex Sinaiticus, is probably not a work of the apostolic Barnabas. Westcott and Plumptre quote the passage from the Latin version, which introduces the sentence with the words: sicut dicit Filius Dei. But this seems to be a mistake for sicut decet filios Dei, “as becometh the sons of God.” This is evident from the Greek original (brought to light by the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus), which reads, wJ” prevpei uiJoi’” qeou’ and connects the words with the preceding sentence. See the edition of Barnabae Epistula by Gebhardt and Harnack in Patr. Apost. Op. I. 14. For the sense comp. 2 Tim. 2:19: ajpostavtw ajpo; ajdikiva” James 4:7: ajnivsthte tw/‘ diabovlw/, Ps. 119:163: ajdikivan ejmivshsa.]

(6) “They who wish to see me, and to lay hold on my kingdom, must receive me with affliction and suffering.” From the Epistle of Barnabas, c. 7, where the words are introduced by “Thus he [Jesus] saith,” fhsivn. But it is doubtful whether they are meant as a quotation or rather as a conclusion of the former remarks and a general reminiscence of several passages. Comp. Matt. 16:24; 20:3; Acts 14:22: “We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.”

(7) “He that wonders [oJ qaumavsa” with the wonder of reverential faith] shall reign, and he that reigns shall be made to rest.” From the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 9, § 45). The Alexandrian divine quotes this and the following sentence to show, as Plumptre finely says, “that in the teaching of Christ, as in that of Plato, wonder is at once the beginning and the end of knowledge.”

(8) “Look with wonder at the things that are before thee (qauvmason ta pavronta).“ From Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 9, § 45.).

(9) “I came to abolish sacrifices, and unless ye cease from sacrificing, the wrath [of God] will not cease from you.” From the Gospel of the Ebionites (or rather Essaean Judaizers), quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16). Comp. Matt. 9:13, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.”

(10) “Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you: ask heavenly and there shall be added unto you earthly things.“ Quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. 24, § 154; comp. IV. 6, § 34) and Origen (de Oratione, c. 2), with slight differences. Comp. Matt. 6:33, of which it is probably a free quotation from memory. Ambrose also quotes the sentence (Ep. xxxvi. 3): “Denique scriptum est: ’Petite magna, et parva adjicientur vobis. Petite coelestia, et terrena adjicientur.’ “

(11) “In the things wherein I find you, in them will I judge you.“ Quoted by Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 47), and Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, § 40). Somewhat different Nilus: “Such as I find thee, I will judge thee, saith the Lord.” The parallel passages in Ezekiel 7:3, 8; 18:30; 24:14; 33:20 are not sufficient to account for this sentence. It is probably taken from an apocryphal Gospel. See Hofmann, p. 323.

(12) “He who is nigh unto me is nigh unto the fire: he who is far from me is far from the kingdom. From Origen (Comm. in Jer. III. p. 778), and Didymus of Alexandria (in Ps. 88:8). Comp, Luke 12:49. Ignatius (Ad Smyrn. c. 4) has a similar saying, but not as a quotation, “To be near the sword is to be near God” (ejgguv” macaivra” ejgguv” qeou’).

(13) “If ye kept not that which is little, who will give you that which is great? For I say unto you, he that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much.” From the homily of Pseudo-Clement of Rome (ch. 8). Comp. Luke 16:10–12 and Matt, 25:21, 23. Irenaeus (II. 34, 3) quotes similarly, probably from memory: “Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit nobis?”

(14) “Keep the flesh pure, and the seal [probably baptism] without stain that we (ye) may receive eternal life.” From Pseudo-Clement, ch. 8. But as this is connected with the former sentence by a[ra ou\n tou’to le;gei, it seems to be only an explanation (“he means this”) not a separate quotation. See Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, pp. 200 and 201, and his Appendix containing the newly recovered Portions, p. 384:. On the sense comp. 2 Tim. 2:19; Rom. 4:11; Eph. 1:13; 4:30.

(15) Our Lord, being asked by Salome when His kingdom should come, and the things which he had spoken be accomplished, answered, “When the two shall be one, and the outward as the inward, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.” From Clement of Alexandria, as a quotation from “the Gospel according to the Egyptians” (Strom.III. 13, § 92), and the homily of Pseudo-Clement of Rome (ch. 12). Comp. Matt. 22:30; Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 7:29. The sentence has a mystical coloring which is alien to the genuine Gospels, but suited the Gnostic taste.

(16) “For those that are infirm was I infirm, and for those that hunger did I hunger, and for those that thirst did I thirst.“ From Origen (in Matt. xiii. 2). Comp. Matt. 25:35, 36; 1 Cor. 9:20–22.

(17) “Never be ye joyful, except when ye have seen your brother [dwelling] in love.” Quoted from the Hebrew Gospel by Jerome (in Eph. v. 3).

(18) “Take hold, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon [i.e. spirit].” From Ignatius (Ad Symrn. c. 3), and Jerome, who quotes it from the Nazarene Gospel (De Viris illustr. 16). Words said to have been spoken to Peter and the apostles after the resurrection. Comp. Luke 24:39; John 20:27.

(19) “Good must needs come, but blessed is he through whom it cometh; in like manner evil must needs come, but woe to him through whom it cometh.“ From the “Clementine Homilies,” xii. 29. For the second clause comp. Matt. 18:7; Luke 17:1.

(20) “My mystery is for me, and for the sons of my house.“ From Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 10, § 64), the Clementine Homilies (xix. 20), and Alexander of Alexandria (Ep. ad Alex. c. 5, where the words are ascribed to the Father). Comp. Isa. 24:16 (Sept.); Matt. 13:11; Mark 4:11.

(21) “If you do not make your low things high and your crooked things straight ye shall not enter into my kingdom.“ From the Acta Philippi in Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 90, quoted by Ewald, Gesch. Christus, p. 288, who calls these words a weak echo of more excellent sayings.

(22) “I will choose these things to myself. Very excellent are those whom my Father that is in heaven hath given to me.“ From the Hebrew Gospel, quoted by Eusebius (Theophan. iv. 13).

(23) “The Lord said, speaking of His kingdom, ’The days will come in which vines will spring up, each having ten thousand stocks, and on each stock ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand bunches, and on each bunch ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall give five-and-twenty measures of wine. And when any saint shall have laid hold on one bunch, another shall cry, I am a better bunch, take me; through me bless the Lord.’ Likewise also [he said], ’that a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand ears of corn, and each grain ten pounds of fine pure flour; and so all other fruits and seeds and each herb according to its proper nature. And that all animals, using for food what is received from the earth, shall live in peace and concord with one another, subject to men with all subjection.’ “ To this description Papias adds: “These things are credible to those who believe. And when Judas the traitor believed not and asked, ’How shall such products come from the Lord?’ the Lord said, ’They shall see who come to me in these times.’ “ From the “weak-minded” Papias (quoted by Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 33, 3). Comp. Isa. 11:6–9.

This is a strongly figurative description of the millennium. Westcott thinks it is based on a real discourse, but to me it sounds fabulous, and borrowed from the Apocalypse of Baruch which has a similar passage (cap. 29, first published in Monumenta Sacra et Profana opera collegii Doctorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, Tom. I. Fasc. II. Mediol. 1866, p. 80, and then in Fritzsche’s ed. of Libri Apocryphi Veteris Test. Lips. 1871, p. 666): “Etiam terra dabit fructus suos unum in decem millia, et in vite una erunt Mille palmites, et unus palmes faciet mille botros, et botrus unus faciet mille acinos, et unus acinus faciet corum vini. Et qui esurierunt jucundabuntur, iterum autem videbunt prodigia quotidie …. Et erit in illo tempore, descendet iterum desuper thesaurus manna, et comedent ex eo in istis annis.”

Westcott quotes eleven other apocryphal sayings which are only loose quotations or perversions of genuine words of Christ, and may therefore be omitted. Nicholson has gathered the probable or possible fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which correspond more or less to passages in the canonical Gospels.

Mohammedan tradition has preserved in the Koran and in other writings several striking words of Christ, which Hofmann, l.c. pp. 327–329, has collected. The following is the best:

“Jesus, the Son of Mary, said, ’He who longs to be rich is like a man who drinks sea-water; the more he drinks the more thirsty he becomes, and never leaves off drinking till he perishes.“

II. Personal Appearance of Jesus.

None of the Evangelists, not even the beloved disciple and bosom-friend of Jesus, gives us the least hint of his countenance and stature, or of his voice, his manner, his food, his dress, his mode of daily life. In this respect our instincts of natural affection have been wisely overruled. He who is the Saviour of all and the perfect exemplar for all should not be identified with the particular lineaments of one race or nationality or type of beauty. We should cling to the Christ in spirit and in glory rather than to the Christ in the flesh So St. Paul thought (2 Cor. 5:16; Comp. 1 Pet. 1:8). Though unseen, he is loved beyond all human beings.

I see Thee not, I hear Thee not,
Yet art Thou oft with me;

And earth hath ne’er so dear a spot,
As when I meet with Thee.”

Jesus no doubt accommodated himself in dress and general appearance to the customs of his age and people, and avoided all ostentation. He probably passed unnoticed through busy crowds. But to the closer observer he must have revealed a spiritual beauty and an overawing majesty in his countenance and personal bearing. This helps to explain the readiness with which the disciples, forsaking all things, followed him in boundless reverence and devotion. He had not the physiognomy of a sinner. He had more than the physiognomy of a saint. He reflected from his eyes and countenance the serene peace and celestial purity of a sinless soul in blessed harmony with God. His presence commanded reverence, confidence and affection.

In the absence of authentic representation, Christian art in its irrepressible desire to exhibit in visible form the fairest among the children of men, was left to its own imperfect conception of ideal beauty. The church under persecution in the first three centuries, was averse to pictorial representations of Christ, and associated with him in his state of humiliation (but not in his state of exaltation) the idea of uncomeliness, taking too literally the prophetic description of the suffering Messiah in the twenty-second Psalm and the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The victorious church after Constantine, starting from the Messianic picture in the forty-fifth Psalm and the Song of Solomon, saw the same Lord in heavenly glory, “fairer than the children of men” and “altogether lovely.” Yet the difference was not so great as it is sometimes represented. For even the ante-Nicene fathers (especially Clement of Alexandria), besides expressly distinguishing between the first appearance of Christ in lowliness and humility, and his second appearance in glory and, majesty, did not mean to deny to the Saviour even in the days of his flesh a higher order of spiritual beauty, “the glory of the only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” which shone through the veil of his humanity, and which at times, as on the mount of transfiguration, anticipated his future glory. “Certainly,” says Jerome, “a flame of fire and starry brightness flashed from his eye, and the majesty of the God head shone in his face.”

The earliest pictures of Christ, in the Catacombs, are purely symbolic, and represent him under the figures of the Lamb, the good Shepherd, the Fish. The last has reference to the Greek word Ichthys, which contains the initials of the words jIhsou’” Cristov” Qeou’ JUio;” Swth;r. “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.” Real pictures of Christ in the early church would have been an offence to the Jewish, and a temptation and snare to the heathen converts.

The first formal description of the personal appearance of Christ, which, though not authentic and certainly not older than the fourth century, exerted great influence on the pictorial representations, is ascribed to the heathen Publius Lentulus, a supposed contemporary of Pilate and “President of the people of Jerusalem” (there was no such office), in an apocryphal Latin letter to the Roman Senate, which was first discovered in a MS. copy of the writings of Anselm of Canterbury in the twelfth century, and published with slight variations by, Fabricius, Carpzov, Gabler, etc. It is as follows:

“In this time appeared a man, who lives till now, a man endowed with great powers. Men call him a great prophet; his own disciples term Him the Son of God. His name is Jesus Christ. He restores the dead to life, and cures the sick of all manner of diseases. This man is of noble and well-proportioned stature, with a face full of kindness and yet firmness, so that the beholders both love Him and fear Him. His hair is of the color of wine, and golden at the root; straight, and without lustre, but from the level of the ears curling and glossy, and divided down the centre after the fashion of the Nazarenes [Nazarites?]. His forehead is even and smooth, his face without wrinkle or blemish, and glowing with delicate bloom. His countenance is frank and kind. Nose and mouth are in no way faulty. His beard is full, of the same hazel color as his hair, not long, but forked. His eyes are blue, and extremely brilliant. In reproof and rebuke he is formidable; in exhortation and teaching, gentle and amiable. He has never been seen to laugh, but oftentimes to weep, (numquam visus est ridere, flere autem saepe). His person is tall and erect; his hands and limbs beautiful and straight. In speaking he is deliberate and grave, and little given to loquacity. In beauty he surpasses the children of men.”

Another description is found in the works of the Greek theologian, John of Damascus, of the 8th century (Epist. ad Theoph. Imp. de venerandis Imag., spurious), and a similar one in the Church History of Nicephorus (I. 40), of the 14th century. They represent Christ as resembling his mother, and ascribe to him a stately person though slightly stooping, beautiful eyes, blond, long, and curly hair, pale, olive complexion, long fingers, and a look expressive of nobility, wisdom, and patience.

On the ground of these descriptions, and of the Abgar and the Veronica legends, arose a vast number of pictures of Christ, which are divided into two classes: the Salvator pictures, with the expression of calm serenity and dignity, without the faintest mark of grief, and the Ecce Homo pictures of the suffering Saviour with the crown of thorns. The greatest painters and sculptors have exhausted the resources of their genius in representations of Christ; but neither color nor chisel nor pen can do more than produce a feeble reflection of the beauty and glory of Him who is the Son of God and the Son of Man.

Among modern biographers of Christ, Dr. Sepp (Rom. Cath., Das Leben Jesu Christi, 1865, vol. VI. 312 sqq.) defends the legend of St. Veronica of the Herodian family, and the genuineness of the picture, of the suffering Saviour with the crown of thorns which he impressed on her silken veil. He rejects the philological explanation of the legend from “the true image” (vera eijkw;n = Veronica), and derives the name from ferenivkh (Berenice), the Victorious. But Bishop Hefele (Art. Christusbilder, in the Cath. Kirchen-Lexikon of Wetzer and Welte, II. 519–524) is inclined, with Grimm, to identify Veronica with the Berenice who is said to have erected a statue to Christ at Caesarea Philippi (Euseb. VII. 18), and to see in the Veronica legend only the Latin version of the Abgar legend of the Greek Church. Dr. Hase (Leben Jesu, p. 79) ascribes to Christ manly beauty, firm health, and delicate, yet not very characteristic features. He quotes John 20:14 and Luke 24:16, where it is said that his friends did not recognize him, but these passages refer only to the mysterious appearances of the risen Lord. Renan (Vie de Jésus, ch. X-XIV. p. 403) describes him in the frivolous style of a novelist, as a doux Galilèen, of calm and dignified attitude, as a beau jeune homme who made a deep impression upon women, especially Mary of Magdala; even a proud Roman lady, the wife of Pontius Pilate, when she caught a glimpse of him from the window (?), was enchanted, dreamed of him in the night and was frightened at the prospect of his death. Dr. Keim (I. 463) infers from his character, as described in the Synoptical Gospels, that he was perhaps not strikingly handsome, yet certainly noble, lovely, manly, healthy and vigorous, looking like a prophet, commanding reverence, making men, women, children, sick and poor people feel happy in his presence. Canon Farrar (I. 150) adopts the view of Jerome and Augustine, and speaks of Christ as “full of mingled majesty and tenderness in—

’That face

How beautiful, if sorrow had not made

Sorrow more beautiful than beauty’s self.’ “

On artistic representations of Christ see J. B. Carpzov: De oris et corpor is J. Christi forma Pseudo-Lentuli, J. Damasceni et Nicephori proso - pographiae. Helmst. 1777. P. E. Jablonski: De origine imaginum Christi Domini. Lugd. Batav. 1804. W. Grimm: Die Sage vom Ursprung der Christusbilder. Berlin, 1843. Dr. Legis Glückselig: Christus-Archäologie; Das Buch von Jesus Christus und seinem wahren Ebenbilde. Prag, 1863 4to. Mrs. Jameson and Lady Eastlake: The History of our Lord as exemplified in Works of Art (with illustrations). Lond., 2d ed. 1865 2 vols. Cowper: Apocr. Gospels. Lond. 1867, pp. 217–226. Hase: Leben Jesu, pp. 76–80 (5th ed.), Keim: Gesch. Jesu von Naz. I. 459–464. Farrar: Life of Christ. Lond. 1874, I. 148–150, 312–313; II. 464.

III. The Testimony of Josephus on John the Baptist.

Antiq. Jud. xviii. c. 5, § 2. Whatever may be thought of the more famous passage of Christ which we have discussed in § 14 (p. 92), the passage on John is undoubtedly genuine and so accepted by most scholars. It fully and independently confirms the account of the Gospels on John’s work and martyrdom, and furnishes, indirectly, an argument in favor of the historical character of their account of Christ, for whom he merely prepared the way. We give it in Whiston’s translation: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man (ajgaqo;n a[ndra), and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.”

IV. The Testimony of Mara to Christ, a.d. 74.

This extra-biblical notice of Christ, made known first in 1865, and referred to above § 14 p. 94) reads as follows (as translated from the Syriac by Cureton and Pratten):

“What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their [superior] intelligence, without [the opportunity of making] a defence? [They are not wholly to be pitied.] For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or The Jews [by the murder] of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away [from them]? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of [all] three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to destruction and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. [Nay], Socrates did not die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet The Wise King, because of the new laws he enacted.

The nationality and position of Mara are unknown. Dr. Payne Smith supposes him to have been a Persian. He wrote from prison and wished to die, “by what kind of death concerns me not.” In the beginning of his letter Mara says: “On this account, lo, I have written for thee this record, [touching] that which I have by careful observation discovered in the world. For the kind of life men lead has been carefully observed by me. I tread the path of learning, and from the study of Greek philosophy have I found out all these things, although they suffered shipwreck when the birth of life took place.” The birth of life may refer to the appearance of Christianity in the world, or to Mara’s own conversion. But there is no other indication that he was a Christian. The advice he gives to his son is simply to “devote himself to wisdom, the fount of all things good, the treasure that fails not.”

§ 19. The Resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is reported by the four Gospels, taught in the Epistles, believed throughout Christendom, and celebrated on every “Lord’s Day,” as an historical fact, as the crowning miracle and divine seal of his whole work, as the foundation of the hopes of believers, as the pledge of their own future resurrection. It is represented in the New Testament both as an act of the Almighty Father who raised his Son from the dead,208 and as an act of Christ himself, who had the power to lay down his life and to take it again.209 The ascension was the proper conclusion of the resurrection: the risen life of our Lord, who is “the Resurrection and the Life,” could not end in another death on earth, but must continue in eternal glory in heaven. Hence St. Paul says, “Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”210

The Christian church rests on the resurrection of its Founder. Without this fact the church could never have been born, or if born, it would soon have died a natural death. The miracle of the resurrection and the existence of Christianity are so closely connected that they must stand or fall together. If Christ was raised from the dead, then all his other miracles are sure, and our faith is impregnable; if he was not raised, he died in vain and our faith is vain. It was only his resurrection that made his death available for our atonement, justification and salvation; without the resurrection, his death would be the grave of our hopes; we should be still unredeemed and under the power of our sins. A gospel of a dead Saviour would be a contradiction and wretched delusion. This is the reasoning of St. Paul, and its force is irresistible.211

The resurrection of Christ is therefore emphatically a test question upon which depends the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion. It is either the greatest miracle or the greatest delusion which history records.212

Christ had predicted both his crucifixion and his resurrection, but the former was a stumbling-block to the disciples, the latter a mystery which they could not understand till after the event.213 They no doubt expected that he would soon establish his Messianic kingdom on earth. Hence their utter disappointment and downheartedness after the crucifixion. The treason of one of their own number, the triumph of the hierarchy, the fickleness of the people, the death and burial of the beloved Master, had in a few hours rudely blasted their Messianic hopes and exposed them to the contempt and ridicule of their enemies. For two days they were trembling on the brink of despair. But on the third day, behold, the same disciples underwent a complete revolution from despondency to hope, from timidity to courage, from doubt to faith, and began to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection in the face of an unbelieving world and at the peril of their lives. This revolution was not isolated, but general among them; it was not the result of an easy credulity, but brought about in spite of doubt and hesitation;214 it was not superficial and momentary, but radical and lasting; it affected, not only the apostles, but the whole history of the world. It reached even the leader of the persecution, Saul of Tarsus one of the clearest and strongest intellects, and converted him into the most devoted and faithful champion of this very gospel to the hour of his martyrdom.

This is a fact patent to every reader of the closing chapters of the Gospels, and is freely admitted even by the most advanced skeptics.215

The question now rises whether this inner revolution in the, life of the disciples, with its incalculable effects upon the fortunes of mankind, can be rationally explained without a corresponding outward revolution in the history of Christ; in other words, whether the professed faith of the disciples in the risen Christ was true and real, or a hypocritical lie, or an honest self-delusion.

There are four possible theories which have been tried again and again, and defended with as much learning and ingenuity as can be summoned to their aid. Historical questions are not like mathematical problems. No argument in favor of the resurrection will avail with those critics who start with the philosophical assumption that miracles are impossible, and still less with those who deny not only the resurrection of the body, but even the immortality of the soul. But facts are stubborn, and if a critical hypothesis can be proven to be psychologically and historically impossible and unreasonable, the result is fatal to the philosophy which underlies the critical hypothesis. It is not the business of the historian to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.

  1. The Historical view, presented by the Gospels and believed in the Christian church of every denomination and sect. The resurrection of Christ was an actual though miraculous event, in harmony with his previous history and character, and in fulfilment of his own prediction. It was a re-animation of the dead body of Jesus by a return of his soul from the spirit-world, and a rising of body and soul from the grave to a new life, which after repeated manifestations to believers during a short period of forty days entered into glory by the ascension to heaven. The object of the manifestations was not only to convince the apostles personally of the resurrection, but to make them witnesses of the resurrection and heralds of salvation to all the world.216

Truth compels us to admit that there are serious difficulties in harmonizing the accounts of the evangelists, and in forming a consistent conception of the nature of Christ’s, resurrection-body, hovering as it were between heaven and earth, and oscillating for forty days between a natural and a supernatural state of the body clothed with flesh and blood and bearing the wound-prints, and yet so spiritual as to appear and disappear through closed doors and to ascend visibly to heaven. But these difficulties are not so great as those which are created by a denial of the fact itself. The former can be measurably solved, the latter cannot. We, do not know all the details and circumstances which might enable us to clearly trace the order of events. But among all the variations the great central fact of the resurrection itself and its principal features “stand out all the more sure.”217 The period of the forty days is in the nature of the case the most mysterious in the life of Christ, and transcends all ordinary Christian experience. The Christophanies resemble in some respect, the theophanies of the Old Testament, which were granted only to few believers, yet for the general benefit. At all events the fact of the resurrection furnishes the only key for the solution of the psychological problem of the sudden, radical, and permanent change in the mind and conduct of the disciples; it is the necessary link in the chain which connects their history before and after that event. Their faith in the resurrection was too clear, too strong, too steady, too effective to be explained in any other way. They showed the strength and boldness of their conviction by soon returning to Jerusalem, the post of danger, and founding there, in the very face of the hostile Sanhedrin, the mother-church of Christendom.

  1. The Theory of Fraud. The apostles stole and hid the body of Jesus, and deceived the world.218

This infamous lie carries its refutation on its face: for if the Roman soldiers who watched the grave at the express request of the priests and Pharisees, were asleep, they could not see the thieves, nor would they have proclaimed their military crime; if they, or only some of them, were awake, they would have prevented the theft. As to the, disciples, they were too timid and desponding at the time to venture on such a daring act, and too honest to cheat the world. And finally a self-invented falsehood could not give them the courage and constancy of faith for the proclamation of the resurrection at the peril of their lives. The whole theory is a wicked absurdity, an insult to the common sense and honor of mankind.

  1. The Swoon-Theory. The physical life of Jesus was not extinct, but only exhausted, and was restored by the tender care of his friends and disciples, or (as some absurdly add) by his own medical skill; and after a brief period he quietly died a natural death.219

Josephus, Valerius Maximus, psychological and medical authorities have been searched and appealed to for examples of such apparent resurrections from a trance or asphyxy, especially on the third day, which is supposed to be a critical turning-point for life or putrefaction.

But besides insuperable physical difficulties—as the wounds and loss of blood from the very heart pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier—this theory utterly fails to account for the moral effect. A brief sickly existence of Jesus in need of medical care, and terminating in his natural death and final burial, without even the glory of martyrdom which attended the crucifixion, far from restoring the faith of the apostles, would have only in the end deepened their gloom and driven them to utter despair.220

  1. The Vision-Theory. Christ rose merely in the imagination of his friends, who mistook a subjective vision or dream for actual reality, and were thereby encouraged to proclaim their faith in the resurrection at the risk of death. Their wish was father to the belief, their belief was father to the fact, and the belief, once started, spread with the power of a religious epidemic from person to person and from place to place. The Christian society wrought the miracle by its intense love for Christ. Accordingly the resurrection does not belong to the history of Christ at all, but to the inner life of his disciples. It is merely the embodiment of their reviving faith.

This hypothesis was invented by a heathen adversary in the second century and soon buried out of sight, but rose to new life in the nineteenth, and spread with epidemical rapidity among skeptical critics in Germany, France, Holland and England.221

The advocates of this hypothesis appeal first and chiefly to the vision of St. Paul on the way to Damascus, which occurred several years later, and is nevertheless put on a level with the former appearances to the older apostles (1 Cor. 15:8); next to supposed analogies in the history of religious enthusiasm and mysticism, such as the individual visions of St. Francis of Assisi, the Maid of Orleans, St. Theresa (who believed that she had seen Jesus in person with the eyes of the soul more distinctly than she could have seen him with the eyes of the body), Swedenborg, even Mohammed, and the collective visions of the Montanists in Asia Minor, the Camisards in France, the spectral resurrections of the martyred Thomas à Becket of Canterbury and Savonarola of Florence in the excited imagination of their admirers, and the apparitions of the Immaculate Virgin at Lourdes.222

Nobody will deny that subjective fancies and impressions are often mistaken for objective realities. But, with the exception of the case of St. Paul—which we shall consider in its proper place, and which turns out to be, even according to the admission of the leaders of skeptical criticism, a powerful argument against the mythical or visionary theory—these supposed analogies are entirely irrelevant; for, not to speak of other differences, they were isolated and passing phenomena which left no mark on history; while the faith in the resurrection of Christ has revolutionized the whole world. It must therefore be treated on its own merits as an altogether unique case.

(a) The first insuperable argument against the visionary nature, and in favor of the objective reality, of the resurrection is the empty tomb of Christ. If he did not rise, his body must either have been removed, or remained in the tomb. If removed by the disciples, they were guilty of a deliberate falsehood in preaching the resurrection, and then the vision-hypothesis gives way to the exploded theory of fraud. If removed by the enemies, then these enemies had the best evidence against the resurrection, and would not have failed to produce it and thus to expose the baselessness of the vision. The same is true, of course, if the body had remained in the tomb. The murderers of Christ would certainly not have missed such an opportunity to destroy the very foundation of the hated sect.

To escape this difficulty, Strauss removes the origin of the illusion away off to Galilee, whether the disciples fled; but this does not help the matter, for they returned in a few weeks to Jerusalem, where we find them all assembled on the day of Pentecost.

This argument is fatal even to the highest form of the vision hypothesis, which admits a spiritual manifestation of Christ from heaven, but denies the resurrection of his body.

(b) If Christ did not really rise, then the words which he spoke to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples of Emmaus, to doubting Thomas, to Peter on the lake of Tiberias, to all the disciples on Mount Olivet, were likewise pious fictions. But who can believe that words of such dignity and majesty, so befitting the solemn moment of the departure to the throne of glory, as the commandment to preach the gospel to every creature, to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the promise to be with his disciples alway to the end of the world—a promise abundantly verified in the daily experience of the church—could proceed from dreamy and self-deluded enthusiasts or crazy fanatics any more than the Sermon on the Mount or the Sacerdotal Prayer! And who, with any spark of historical sense, can suppose that Jesus never instituted baptism, which has been performed in his name ever since the day of Pentecost, and which, like the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, bears testimony to him every day as the sunlight does to the sun!

(c) If the visions of the resurrection were the product of an excited imagination, it is unaccountable that they should suddenly have ceased on the fortieth day (Acts 1:15), and not have occurred to any of the disciples afterwards, with the single exception of Paul, who expressly represents his vision of Christ as “the last.” Even on the day of Pentecost Christ did not appear to them, but, according to his promise, “the other Paraclete” descended upon them; and Stephen saw Christ in heaven, not on earth.223

(d) The chief objection to the vision-hypothesis is its intrinsic impossibility. It makes the most exorbitant claim upon our credulity. It requires us to believe that many persons, singly and collectively, at different times, and in different places, from Jerusalem to Damascus, had the same vision and dreamed the same dream; that the women at the open sepulchre early in the morning, Peter and John soon afterwards, the two disciples journeying to Emmaus on the afternoon of the resurrection day, the assembled apostles on the evening in the absence of Thomas, and again on the next Lord’s Day in the presence of the skeptical Thomas, seven apostles at the lake of Tiberias, on one occasion five hundred brethren at once most of whom were still alive when Paul reported the fact, then James, the brother of the Lord, who formerly did not believe in him, again all the apostles on Mount Olivet at the ascension, and at last the clearheaded, strong-minded persecutor on the way to Damascus—that all these men and women on these different occasions vainly imagined they saw and heard the self-same Jesus in bodily shape and form; and that they were by this baseless vision raised all at once from the deepest gloom in which the crucifixion of their Lord had left them, to the boldest faith and strongest hope which impelled them to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection from Jerusalem to Rome to the end of their lives! And this illusion of the early disciples created the greatest revolution not only in their own views and conduct, but among Jews and Gentiles and in the subsequent history of mankind! This illusion, we are expected to believe by these unbelievers, gave birth to the most real and most mighty of all facts, the Christian Church which has lasted these eighteen hundred years and is now spread all over the civilized world, embracing more members than ever and exercising more moral power than all the kingdoms and all other religions combined!

The vision-hypothesis, instead of getting rid of the miracle, only shifts it from fact to fiction; it makes an empty delusion more powerful than the truth, or turns all history itself at last into a delusion. Before we can reason the resurrection of Christ out of history we must reason the apostles and Christianity itself out of existence. We must either admit the miracle, or frankly confess that we stand here before an inexplicable mystery.

Remarkable Concessions.—The ablest advocates of the vision-theory are driven against their wish and will to admit some unexplained objective reality in the visions of the risen or ascended Christ.

Dr. Baur, of Tübingen (d. 1860), the master-critic among sceptical church historians, and the corypheus of the Tübingen school, came at last to the conclusion (as stated in the revised edition of his Church History of the First Three Centuries, published shortly before his death, 1860) that “nothing but the miracle of the resurrection could disperse the doubts which threatened to drive faith itself into the eternal night of death (Nur das Wunder der Auferstehung konnte die Zweifel zerstreuen, welche den Glauben selbst in die ewige Nacht des Todes verstossen zu müssen schienen).” Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, I. 39. It is true he adds that the nature of the resurrection itself lies outside of historical investigation (“Was die Auferstehung an sich ist, liegt ausserhalb des Kreises der geschichtlichen Untersuchung“), but also, that “for the faith of the disciples the resurrection of Jesus became the most solid and most irrefutable certainty. In this faith only Christianity gained a firm foothold of its historical development. (In diesem Glauben hat erst das Christenthum den festen Grund seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung gewonnen.) What history requires as the necessary prerequisite of all that follows is not so much the fact of the resurrection itself [?] as the faith in that fact. In whatever light we may consider the resurrection of Jesus, whether as an actual objective miracle or as a subjective psychological one (als ein objectiv geschehenes Wunder, oder als ein subjectiv psychologisches), even granting the possibility of such a miracle, no psychological analysis can penetrate the inner spiritual process by which in the consciousness of the disciples their unbelief at the death of Jesus was transformed into a belief of his resurrection …. We must rest satisfied with this, that for them the resurrection of Christ was a fact of their consciousness, and had for them all the reality of an historical event.” (Ibid., pp. 39, 40.) Baur’s remarkable conclusion concerning the conversion of St. Paul (ibid., pp. 44, 45) we shall consider in its proper place.

Dr. Ewald, of Göttingen (d. 1874), the great orientalist and historian of Israel, antagonistic to Baur, his equal in profound scholarship and bold, independent, often arbitrary criticism, but superior in religious sympathy with the genius of the Bible, discusses the resurrection of Christ in his History of the Apostolic Age (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. VI. 52 sqq.), instead of his Life of Christ, and resolves it into a purely spiritual, though long continued manifestation from heaven. Nevertheless he makes the strong statement (p. 69) that “nothing is historically more certain than that Christ rose from the dead and appeared to his own, and that this their vision was the beginning of their new higher faith and of an their Christian labors.” “Nichts steht geschichtlich fester,“ he says, “als dass Christus aus den Todten auferstanden den Seinigen wiederschien und dass dieses ihr wiedersehen der anfang ihres neuen höhern glaubens und alles ihres Christlichen wirkens selbst war. Es ist aber ebenso gewiss dass sie ihn nicht wie einen gewöhnlichen menschen oder wie einen aus dem grabe aufsteigenden schatten oder gespenst wie die sage von solchen meldet, sondern wie den einzigen Sohn Gottes, wie ein durchaus schon übermächtiges und übermenschliches wesen wiedersahen und sich bei späteren zurückerinnerungen nichts anderes denken konnten als dass jeder welcher ihn wiederzusehen gewürdigt sei auch sogleich unmittelbar seine einzige göttliche würde erkannt und seitdem felsenfest daran geglaubt habe. Als den ächten König und Sohn Gottes hatten ihn aber die Zwölfe und andre schon im leben zu erkennen gelernt: der unterschied ist nur der dass sie ihn jetzt auch nach seiner rein göttlichen seite und damit auch als den über den tod siegreichen erkannt zu haben sich erinnerten. Zwischen jenem gemeinen schauen des irdischen Christus wie er ihnen sowohl bekannt war und diesem höhern tieferregten entzückten schauen des himmlischen ist also dock ein innerer zusammenhang, so dass sie ihn auch jetzt in diesen ersten tagen und wochen nach seinem tode nie als den himmlischen Messias geschauet hätten wenn sie ihn nicht schon vorher als den irdischen so wohl gekannt hätten.”

Dr. Keim, of Zürich (d. at Giessen, 1879), an independent pupil of Baur, and author of the most elaborate and valuable Life of Christ which the liberal critical school has produced, after giving every possible advantage to the mythical view of the resurrection, confesses that it is, after all, a mere hypothesis and fails to explain the main point. He says (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, III. 600): “Nach allen diesen Ueberlegungen wird man zugestehen müssen, dass auch die neuerdings beliebt gewordene Theorie nur eine Hypothese ist, welche Einiges erklärt, die Hauptsache nicht erklärt, ja im Ganzen und Grossen das geschichtlich Bezeugte schiefen und hinfälligen Gesichtspunkten unterstellt. Misslingt aber gleichmässig der Versuch, die überlieferte Aufs Auferstehungsgeschichte festzuhalten, wie das Unternehmen, mit Hilfe der paulinischen Visionen eine natürliche Erklärung des Geschehenen aufzubauen, so bleibt für die Geschichte zunächst kein Weg übrig als der des Eingeständnisses, dass die Sagenhaftigkeit der redseligen Geschichte und die dunkle Kürze der glaubwürdigen Geschichte es nicht gestattet, über die räthselhaften Ausgange des Lebens Jesu, so wichtig sie an und für sich und in der Einwirkung auf die Weltgeschichte gewesen sind, ein sicheres unumstössliches Resultat zu geben. Für die Geschichte, sofern sie nur mit benannten evidenten Zahlen und mit Reihen greifbarer anerkannter Ursachen und Wirkungen rechnet, existirt als das Thatsächliche und Zweifellose lediglich der feste Glaube der Apostel, dass Jesus auferstanden, und die ungeheure Wirkung dieses Glaubens, die Christianisirung der Menschheit. On p. 601 he expresses the conviction that “it was the crucified and living Christ who, not as the risen one, but rather as the divinely glorified one (als der wenn nicht Auferstandene, so doch vielmehr himmlisch Verherrlichte), gave visions to his disciples and revealed himself to his society.” In his last word on the great problem, Keim, in view of the exhaustion and failure of the natural explanations, comes to the conclusion, that we must either, with Dr. Baur, humbly confess our ignorance, or return to the faith of the apostles who “have seen the Lord” (John 20:25). See the third and last edition of his abridged Geschichte Jesu, Zürich, 1875, p. 362.

Dr. Schenkel, of Heidelberg, who in his Charakterbild Jesu (third ed. 1864, pp. 231 sqq.) had adopted the vision-theory in its higher form as a purely spiritual, though real manifestation from heaven, confesses in his latest work, Das Christusbild der Apostel (1879, p. 18), his inability to solve the problem of the resurrection of Christ, and says: “Niemals wird es der Forschung gelingen, das Räthsel des Auferstehungsglaubens zu ergründen. Nichts aber steht fester in der Geschichte als die Thatsache dieses Glaubens; auf ihm beruht die Stiftung der christlichen Gemeinschaft … Der Visionshypothese, welche die Christuserscheinungen der Jünger aus Sinnestäuschungen erklären will, die in einer Steigerung des ’Gemüths und Nervenlebens’ ihre physische und darum auch psychische Ursache hatten,… steht vor allem die Grundfarbe der Stimmung in den Jüngern, namentlich in Petrus, im Wege: die tiefe Trauer, das gesunkene Selbstvertrauen, die nagende Gewissenspein, der verlorne Lebensmuth. Wie soll aus einer solchen Stimmung das verklärte Bild des Auferstandenen hervorgehen, mit dieser unverwüstlichen Sicherheit und unzerstörbaren Freudigkeit, durch welche der Auferstehungsglaube die Christengemeinde in allen Stürmen und Verfolgungen aufrecht zu erhalten vermochte?“

Footnote

(96): Luke 2:52.

(97): Hebr. 5:8, 9.

(98): See Cowper, l.c. pp. 212-214.

(99): Mark 6:2, 3; Matt. 13:54-56; John 7:15.

(100): John 12:32.

(101): Augustine: “Deus; quid gloriosus? Caro; quid vilius? Deus in carne; quid mirabilius?“

(102): On the testimony of Napoleon to the divinity of Christ see the letters of Bersier and Lutteroth appended to the twelfth ed. of my book on the Person of Christ (1882), p. 284, and pp. 219 sqq. Napoleon is reported to have asked the poet Wieland at a court-ball in Weimar, during the Congress of Erfurt, whether he doubted that Jesus ever lived; to which Wieland promptly and emphatically replied in the negative, adding that with equal right a thousand years hence men might deny the existence of Napoleon or the battle of Jena. The emperor smiled and said, très-bien! The question was designed not to express doubt, but to test the poet’s faith. So Dr. Hase reports from the mouth of Chancellor Müller, who heard the conversation. Geschichte Jesu, p. 9.

(103): The fathers distinguish between the Nativity (gevnesi”, Matt. 1:18) and the Incarnation (savrkwsi”) and identify the Incarnation with the Conception or Annunciation. Since the time of Charlemagne the two terms seem to have been used synonymously. See Ideler, Chronol., ii. 383, and Gieseler, i. 70 (4th Germ. ed.).

(104): Jos., Antiqu., xvii. 8,1: “Herod died … having reigned since he had procured Antigonus to be slain [a.u. 717, or B.C. 37], thirty-four years, but since he had been declared king by the Romans [a.u. 714, or B.C. 40], thirty-seven.” Comp. the same statement in Bell. Jud., i. 33, 8, and other passages.

(105): According to Josephus, Antiqu. xvii. 6, 4: “And that night there was an eclipse of the moon.” It is worthy of note that Josephus mentions no other eclipse in any of his works.

(106): Matt. 2:16: pavnta” tou;” paiÀdo” … ajpo;dietouÀ” kai; katwtevrw kata; ton; crovnon o}n hjkrivbwsen para; twÀn mavgwn.

(107): Tradition has here most absurdly swelled the number of Innocents to 20,000, as indicated on the massive column, which marks the spot of their supposed martyrdom in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. XX M[artyres], i.e. martyrs, have become XX M[ilia], i.e. twenty thousands.

(108): Macrob., Sat., ii 4: “Augustus, cum audisset, inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum [perhaps taken from Matt. 2:16, Vulg.: a bimatu et infra]:jussit interfici, filium quoque eius occisum, ait: melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium.” It is a pun on the similar sounding Greek terms for sow and son (u|” and uiJov”). Kepler already quoted thispassage in confirmation of Matthew.

(109): Tacitus (Hist., v. 13) and Suetonius (Vespas.,c. 4) speak of a widespread expectation of that kind at the time of the Jewish war and before (Suetonius calls it a vetus et constans opinio), but falsely refer it to the Roman emperors Vespasianus and Titus. In this the heathen historians followed Josephus, who well knew and believed the Messianic hopes of his people (comp. Ant., iv. 6, 5; x. 10, 4; 11, 7), and yet was not ashamed basely to betray and pervert them, saying (Bell. Jud. vi. 5, 4): “What did the most to elevate the Jews in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was found also in their sacred writings, how ’about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.’ The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the goverment of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judaea.” Comp. Hausrath, N.T. Ztgesch., I. 173. The Messianic hopes continued long after the destruction of Jerusalem. The false Messiah, who led the rebellion under the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 135), called himself Bar-Cochba, i.e. “Son of the Star,” and issued coins with a star, in allusion probably to Num. 24:17. When his real character was revealed, his name was turned into Bar-Cosiba, “Son of Falsehood.”

(110): In the beginning of his Bericht vom Geburtsjahr Christi (Opera, IV. 204) he describes this new star in these words: “Einungewöhnlicher, sehr heller und schöner Stern … der wie die schönste, herrlichste Fackel so jemahl mit Augen gesehen worden, wenn sie von einem starken Wind getrieben wird, geflammet und gefunkelt, gerad neben den drey höchsten Planeten Saturno, Jove und Marte.” He calls this phenomenon “ein überaus grosses Wunderwerk Gottes.” A fuller description of the whole phenomenon he gives in his work De Stella Nova (Opera, II. 575 sqq. and 801 sqq., ed. Frisch). Upham (The Wise Men, N. Y. 1869, p. 145) says: “Tycho de Brahe had observed a similar wonder in the constellation Cassiopeia, on the night of the 11th of October, in the year 1572. These were not luminous bodies within our atmosphere; were not within, or near, the solar system; they were in the region of the fixed stars. Each grew more and more brilliant, till it shone like a planet. Then its lustre waned until it ceased to be visible,—the one in March, 1574, the other in February, 1606. The light was white, then yellow, then red, then dull, and so went out.” On temporary stars, see Herschel’s Astronomy, Chap. XII.

(111): The learned Jewish Rabbi Abarbanel, in his Commentary on Daniel (called Ma’jne hajeshuah, i.e.”Wells of Salvation,”Isa. 12:3), which was published 1547, more than fifty years before Kepler’s calculation, says that such a conjunction took place three years before the birth of Moses (A.M. 2365), and would reappear before the birth of the Messiah, A.M. 5224 (or a.d. 1463). Ideler and Wieseler conjecture that this astrological belief existed among the Jews already at the time of Christ.

(112): It has been so accepted by Dean Alford and others. See the note in 6th ed. of his Com. on Matt. 2:2 (1868), with the corrections furnished by Rev. C. Pritchard. McClellan (New Test., I, 402) assumes that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was premonitory and coincided with the conception of the birth of John the Baptist, Oct. 748, and that Kepler’s new star was Messiah’s star appearing a year later.

(113): Comp. Num. 4:3, 35, 39, 43, 47.

(114): In the new revision the passage, Luke 3:1, 2, is thus translated: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign (hJgemoniva”) of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor (hJgemoneuvonto”) of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” The statement must have been quite intelligible to the educated readers of that time.

(115): The different interpretations of aujto;” h|n ajrcovmeno” wJsei; ejtwÀn triavkonta do not alter the result much, but the wJseiv leaves a margin for a few months more or less. Comp. McClellan, I. 404.

(116): He uses the same term of Pontius Pilate (hJgemoneuvonto”). Zumpt, l.c. p. 296, says: “Eigentlich verstanden, bezeichnet hJgemoniva die Würde des militärischen Befehlshabers und des Regenten über die Provinzen. Hätte Lucas ’Augustus Kaiser’ (aujtokravtwr) oder auch nur ’Herrscher’ (a[rcwn) gesagt, so würde man an eine Zählung von Tiberius’ Provincialverwaltung weniger denken können .

(117): Different modes of counting were not unusual, regarding the early Roman emperors, and Herod I. See above, p. 112, Zumpt, l. c. 282 sqq., and Andrews, p. 27. Suetonius (Tib., 33) and Tacitus (Annal., vi. 51) say that Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, meaning his sole reign; but there are indications also of the other counting, at least in Egypt and the provinces, where the authority of Tiberius as the active emperor was more felt than in Rome. There are coins from Antioch in Syria of the date a.u. 765, with the head of Tiberius and the inscription, Kaisar. Sebasto” (Augustus). In favor of the computation from the colleagueship are Ussher, Bengel, Lardner, Greswell, Andrews, Zumpt, Wieseler, McClellan; in favor of the computation from the sole reign are Lightfoot, Ewald. Browne. Wieseler formerly held that Luke refers to the imprisonment, and not the beginning of the ministry, of John, but he changed his view; see his art. in Herzog’s “ Encykl.,”xxi. 547.

(118): Andrews,l. c. p. 28, thus sums up his investigations upon this point: “We find three solutions of the chronological difficulties which the statements of Luke present: 1st. That the 15th year of Tiberius is to be reckoned from the death ot Augustus, and extends from August, 781, to August, 782. In this year the Baptist, whose labors began some time previous, was imprisoned; but the Lord’s ministry began in 780, before this imprisonment, and when he was about thirty years of age. 2d. That the 15th year is to be reckoned from the death of Augustus, but that the statement, the Lord was about thirty years of age, is to be taken in a large sense, and that he may have been of any age from thirty to thirty-five when he began he labors. 3d. That the 15th year is to be reckoned from the year when Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the empire, and is therefore the year 779. In this case the language, ’he was about thirty,’ may be strictly taken, and the statement, ’the word of God came unto John,’ may be referred to the beginning of his ministry.”

(119): Hase (Gesch. Jesu, p. 209) strangely defends the Dionysian era, but sacrifices the date of Matthew, together with the whole history of the childhood of Jesus. Against the view of Keim see Schürer, p. 242.

(120): See the literature till 1874 in Schürer, p. 262, who devotes 24 pages to this subject. The most important writers on the census of Quirinius are Huschke (a learned jurist, in 2 treatises, 1840 and 1847), Wieseler (1843 and 1869), and Zumpt (1854 and 1869). Comp, also the article “Taxing,” by Dr. Plumptre, supplemented by Dr. Woolsey, in Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” (Hackett and Abbot’s ed.), IV. 3185, and J. B. McClellan, New Test., I. 392.

(121): This is the proper meaning of the original (according to the last text of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, who with B D omit the article hJ) au[th ajpografh; prwvth ejgevneto hJgemoneuvonto” th’” Suriva” Kurhnivou. Vulg.:Haec descriptio prima facta est a praeside Syriae Cyrino.The English version, “ this taxing was first made when,”is ungrammatical, and would require prw’ton, or, prw’ta instead of prwvth. Luke either meant to say that there was no previous enrolment in Judea, or, more probably had in his mind a second enrolment made under Quirinius at his second governorship, which is noticed by him in Acts 5:37, and was well known to his readers. See below. Quirinius (Kurhvnio”) is the proper spelling (Strabo, Josephus, Tacitus, Justin M)—not Quirinus, which was also a Roman name; hence the confusion. (See Weiss, in the 6th ed. of Meyer on Luke, p. 286.) His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Tacitus, Annal., iii 48; Suetonius, Tiber., 49). He was consul a.u. 742, at the head of an army in Africa, 747, and died in Rome, a.d. 21. Josephus speaks of him at the beginning of the 18th book of his Archael. See, a full account of him in Zumpt, pp. 43-71.

(122): Ulpian, quoted by Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 203 sq.

(123): Josephus, Antiqu., xvii. 13, 5; xviii. 1, 1. The census here referred to is evidently the same which Luke means in Acts 5:37: “After this man arose Judas the Galilaean in the days of the enrolment.” Josephus calls him “Judas, a Gaulanite,” because he was of Gamala in lower Gaulanitis; but in Ant., xx. 5, 2, and Bell. Jud., ii. 8, 1, he calls him likewise a Galilaean. In this case, then, Luke is entirely correct, and it is extremely improbable that a writer otherwise so well informed as Luke should have confounded two enrolments which were ten years apart.

(124): The usual solution of the difficulty is to give prwvth the sense of protevra before Quirinius was governor; as prw’tov” tino” is used (though not in connection with a participle) in the sense of prior to, John 1:15, 30; 15:18. So Ussher, Huschke, Tholuck, Wieseler, Caspari, Ewald. But this would have been more naturally and clearly expressed by privn or pro; touÀ hJgemeneuvein (as in Luke 2:21; 12:15; Acts 23:15). Paulus, Ebrard, Lange, Godet, and others accentuate authv (ipsa) and explain: The decree of the census was issued at the time of Christ’s birth, but the so-called first census itself did not take place till the governorship of Quirinius (ten years later). Impossible on account of Lk 2:3, which reports the execution of the decree, Lk 2:1. Browne (p. 46) and others understand hJgemoneuvein in a wider sense, so as to include an extraordinary commission of Quirinius as legatus Caesaris.

(125): Annal., iii. 48, as interpreted by A. W. Zumpt in a Latin dissertation: De Syria Romanorum provincia ab Caesare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum, in Comment. Epigraph., Berol. 1854, vol. ii. 88-125, and approved by Mommsen in Res gesstae divi Augusti, 121-124. Zumpt has developed his views more fully in Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1869, pp. 1-90. Ussher, Sanclemente, Ideler (II. 397), and Browne (p. 46) had understood Tacitus in the same way.

(126): First published at Florence, 1765, then by Sanclemente (De vulg. aerae Emendat. Rom. 1793), and more correctly by Bergmann and Mommsen: De inscriptione Latina, ad P. Sulpicium Quirinium referenda, Berol. 1851. Mommsen discussed it again in an appendix to Res gestae Augusti, Berol. 1865, pp. 111-126. The inscription is defective, and reads: “… Pro. Consul. Asiam. Provinciam. Op[tinuit legatus]. Divi. Augusti[i]terum i.e., again, a second time]. Syriam. Et. Ph[oenicem administravit, or, obtinuit]. The name is obliterated. Zumpt refers it to C. Sentius Saturninus (who preceded Quirinius, but is not known to have been twice governor of Syria), Bergmann, Mommsen, and Merivale to Quirinius (as was done by Sanclemente in 1793, and by Ideler, 1826). Nevertheless Mommsen denies any favorable bearing of the discovery on the solution of the difficulty in Luke, while Zumpt defends the substantial accuracy of the evangelist.

(127): Josephus, Antiqu., xvii. 11, 1; Tacitus, Hist., v. 9: “post mortem Herodis … Simo quidam regium nomen invaserat; is a Quintilio Vare obtinento Syriam punitus,” etc.

(128): .Three censuses, held a.u. 726, 748, and 767, are mentioned on the monument of Ancyra; one in Italy, 757, by Dion Cassius; others in Gaul are assigned to 727, 741, 767; Tertullian, who was a learned lawyer, speaks of one in Judaea under Sentius Saturninus, a.u. 749; and this would be the one which must be meant by Luke. See Gruter, Huschke, Zumpt, Plumptre, l. c.

(129): Suetonius, Aug. 28, 101; Tacitus, Annal., i. 11; Dio Cassius, lii. 30; Ivi. 33. The breviarium contained, according to Tacitus: “opes publicae quantum civium sociorumque in armis [which would include Herod], quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones. Quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus, addideratque consilium coërcendi intra terminos imperii, incertum metu anper invidiam“

(130): Joseph. Ant. xvi. 9, § 4. Comp. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I.249.

(131): Such a decree has been often inferred from the passages of Suetonius and Tacitus just quoted. The silence of Josephus is not very difficult to explain, for he does not profess to give a history of the empire, is nearly silent on the period from a.u. 750-760, and is not as impartial a historian as Luke, nor worthy of more credit. Cassiodorus (Variarum, iii. 52) and Suidas (s. v., ajpografhv) expressly assert the fact of a general census, and add several particulars which are not derived from Luke; e.g. Suidas says that Augustus elected twenty commissioners of high character and sent them to all parts of the empire to collect statistics of population as well as of property, and to return a portion to the national treasury. Hence Huschke, Wieseler, Zumpt, Plumptre, and McClellan accept their testimony as historically correct (while Schürer derives it simply from Luke, without being able to account for these particulars). Wieseler quotes also John Malala, the historian of Antioch, as saying, probablyon earlier authorities, that “Augustus, in the 39th year and 10th month of his reign [i.e. B.C. 5 or 6] issued a decree for a general registration throughout the empire.” Julius Caesar had begun a measurement of the whole empire, and Augustus completed it.

(132): Not to be confounded with L. Volusius Saturninus, who is known, from coins, to have been governor of Syria a.u. 758 (a.d. 4).

(133): Adv. Marc. iv. 19: “Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto tunc in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent.”

(134): Zumpt, the classical scholar and archaeologist, concludes (p. 223) that there is nothing in Luke’s account which does not receive, from modern research,”full historical probability” (“volle historische Wahrscheinlichkeit“); while Schürer, the theologian, still doubts (Matt. 28:17). Dr. Woolsey (s. v.”Cyrenius,” in “Smith’s Bible Dict.,” Hackett and Abbot’s ed., p. 526), decides that “something is gained.” In the art. “Taxing” he says that a registration of Judaea made under the direction of the president of Syria by Jewish officers would not greatly differ from a similar registration made by Herod, and need not have alarmed the Jews if carefully managed.

(135): Antiqu. xv. 11, 1: “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign (ojktwkaidekavton thÀs JHrwvdon basileiva” ejniautou’) … undertook a very great work, that is, to build of himself the temple of God, and to raise it to a most magnificent altitude, as esteeming it to be the most glorious of all his actions, as it really was, to bring it to perfection, and that this would be sufficient for an everlasting memorial of him.”

(136): Bell. Jud. I. 21, pentekaidekavtw/ e[tei thÀ” basileiva” aujto;n de; to;n nao;” ejpeskeuvase

(137): Adv. Jud. c. 8: “Huius [Tiberii] quinto decimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos habens quasi triginta, cum pateretur …. Quae passio huius exterminii intra tempora LXX hebdomadarum perfecta est sub Tiberio Caesare, Consulibus Rubellio Gemino Et Fufio Gemino, mense Martio, temporibus paschae, die VIII Kalendarum Aprilium, die prima azymorum, quo agnum occiderunt ad vesperam, sicuti a Moyse fuerat praeceptum.” Lactantius(De Mort. Persec. 2; De Vera Sap. 10) and Augustine make the same statement (De Civit. Dei, I xviii. c. 54: “Mortuus est Christus duobus Geminis Consulibus, octavo Kalendas Aprilis “). Zumpt assigns much weight to this tradition, pp. 268 sqq.

(138): As in Switzerland the herds are driven to the mountain pastures in May and brought home in August or September.

(139): The latest learned advocate of the traditional date is John Brown McClellan, who tries to prove that Christ was born Dec. 25, a.u. 749 (B.C. 5). See his New Test., etc. vol. I. 390 sqq.

(140): Adv. Haer. II. c. 22, § 4-6.

(141): This shows conclusively how uncertain patristic traditions are as to mere facts.

(142): John 8:57. Irenaeus reasons that the Jews made the nearest approach to the real age, either from mere observation or from knowledge of the public records, and thus concludes: “Christ did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did he suffer in the twelfth month of the year; for the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their aeons [he speaks of the Gnostics] there be such long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythos in thePleroma.”

(143): Comp. Matt. 4:12; 23:37; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14; 10:38; 13:34.

(144): John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1. The Passover mentioned 6:4 Christ did not attend, because the Jews sought to kill him (7:1; comp. 5:18).

(145): John 5:1 if we read the article hj before eJorth; twÀn jIoudivwn. See below.

(146): Isa. 61:2; comp. Luke 4:14.

(147): Exod. 12:5.

(148): Keim, I. 130.

(149): Henry Browne who, in his Ordo Saeclorum (pp.80 sqq.), likewise defends the one year’s ministry, in part by astronomical calculations, is constrained to eliminate without any MSS. authority to ;pavsca from John 6:4, and to make the eJorthv there mentioned to be the same as that in 7:2, so that John would give the feasts of one year only, in regular chronological order, namely, the Passover 2:13 in March, the Pentecost 5:1 in May, the Feast of Tabernacles 6:4; 7:2 in September, the Feast of Dedication 10:22 in December, the Passover of the Crucifixion in March.

(150): The definite article before “feast, (hJ eJorthv ) which is supported by the Sinaitic MS. and adopted by Tischendorf (ed. viii.), favors the view that the feast was the Passover,the great feast of the Jews. The reading without the article, which has the weight of the more critical Vatican Ms, and is preferred by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and by the Revision of the E. V., favors the view that it was Pentecost, or Purim, or some other subordinate feast. (On the grammatical question comp. Thayer’s Winer, p. 125, and Moulton’s Winer, p. 155.) In all other passages John gives the name of the feast (to; pavsca John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55; hJ skhvnophgiva 7:2; ta; ejgkaivnia 10:22). It is objected that Jesus would not be likely to attend the patriotic and secular feast of Purim, which was not a temple feast and required no journey to Jerusalem, while he omitted the next Passover (John 6:4) which was of divine appointment and much more solemn; but the objection is not conclusive, since he attended other minor festivals (John 7:2; 10:22) merely for the purpose of doing good.

(151): Luke 13:6-9.Bengel, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, Weizäcker, Alford Wordsworth, Andrews, McClellan.

(152): By Eusebius (H. E., I. 10), Theodoret (in Dan. ix.), Robinson, Andrew, , McClellan, Gardiner, and many others. On the other hand Jerome, Wieseler, and Tischendorf hold the tripaschal theory. Jerome says (on Isaiah 29, in Migne’s ed. of the Opera, IV. 330): “Scriptum est in Evangelio secundum Joannem, per tria Pascha Dominum venisse in Jerusalem, quae duos annos efficiunt.”

(153): W. E. H. Lecky: History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne (1869) vol. II. p. 9. He adds: “Amid all the sins and failings, amid all the priestcraft and persecution and fanaticism that have defaced the Church, it has preserved, in the character and example of its Founder, an enduring principle of regeneration.”

(154): Mark 15:42; Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:14. Friday is called Preparation-day (paraskeuhv), because the meals for the Sabbath were prepared on the sixth day, as no fires were allowed to be kindled on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:5).

(155): Matt. 26:17, 20; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, 15. Comp. John 18:9, 40.

(156): Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23 5; Num. 9:3, 5. If the phrase “between the two evenings” (syIB’r][h; wy]Be) could be taken to mean between the evening of the 14th and the evening of the 15th of Nisan, we should have twenty-four hours for the slaying and eating of the paschal lambs, and the whole difficulty between John and the Synoptists would disappear. We could easier conceive also the enormous number of 270,000 lambs which, according to the statement of Josephus, had to be sacrificed. But that interpretation is excluded by the fact that the same expression is used in the rules about the daily evening sacrifice (Ex. 29:39, 41; Num. 28:4).

(157): John 13:1; 13:29; 18:28 19:14.

(158): John 13:1 “before the feast of the Passover” does not mean a day before (which would have been so expressed, comp, 12:1), but a short time before, and refers to the commencement of the 15th of Nisan. The passage, 13:29: “Buy what things we have need of for the feast,” causes no difficulty if we remember that Jesus sat down with his disciples before the regular hour of the Passover (13:1), so that there was time yet for the necessary purchases. The passage on the contrary affords a strong argument against the supposition that the supper described by John took place a full day before the Passover; for then there would have been no need of such haste for purchases as the apostles understood Christ to mean when he said to Judas.”That thou doest, do quickly” (13:27). In John 18:28 it is said that the Jews went not into the Praetorium of the heathen Pilate “that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover; “ but this was said early in the morning, at about 3 A. M., when the regular paschal meal was not yet finished in the city; others take the word Passover “here in an unusual sense so as to embrace the chagigah ( j’gygÉh) or festive thank-offerings during the Passover week, especially on the fifteenth day of Nisan (comp. 2 Chr. 30:22); at all events it cannot apply to the paschal supper on the evening of the fifteenth of Nisan, for the defilement would have ceased after sunset, and could therefore have been no bar to eating the paschal supper (Lev. 15:1-18; 22:1-7). “ The Preparation of the Passover,”hJ paraskeuh; touÀ pavsca, John 19:14, is not the day preceding the Passover (Passover Eve), but, as clearly in 19:31 and 42, the preparation day of the Passover week, i.e. the Paschal Friday; paraskeuhv being the technical term for Friday as the preparation day for the Sabbath, the fore-Sabbath, prosavbbaton, Mark 15:42 (comp. the German Sonnabend for Saturday, Sabbath-eve, etc.). For a fuller examination of the respective passages, see my edition of Lange on Matthew (pp. 454 sqq.), and on John (pp. 406, 415, 562, 569). Lightfoot, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Hengstenberg, Ebrard (in the third ed. of his Kritik. 1868), Lange, Kirchner, Keil, Robinson, Andrews, Milligan, Plumptre and McClellan take the same view; while Lücke, Bleek, DeWette, Meyer, Ewald, Stier, Beyschlag, Greswell, Ellicott, Farrar, Mansel and Westcott maintain that Christ was crucified on the fourteenth of Nisan, and either assume a contradiction between John and the Synoptists (which in this case seems quite impossible), or transfer the paschal supper of Christ to the preceding day, contrary to law and custom. John himself clearly points to the fifteenth of Nisan as the day of the crucifixion, when he reports that the customary release of a prisoner “ at the Passover”(ejn tw/À pavsca) was granted by Pilate on the day of crucifixion, John 18:39, 40. The critical and cautious Dr. Robinson says (Harmony, p. 222): “ After repeated and calm consideration, there rests upon my own mind a clear conviction, that there is nothing in the language of John, or in the attendant circumstances, which upon fair interpretation requires or permits us to believe, that the beloved disciple either intended to correct, or has in fact corrected or contradicted, the explicit and unquestionable testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke.”Comp. also among the more recent discussions Mor. Kirchner: Die jüd. Passahfeier und Jesu letztes Mahl (Gotha, 1870); McClellan: N. Test. (1875), I. 473 sqq., 482 sqq.; Keil: Evang. des Matt. (Leipz. 1877), pp. 513 sqq.

(159): The answer to this objection is well presented by Dr. Robinson, Harmony p. 222, and Keil, Evang. des Matt., pp. 522 sqq. The Mishna prescribes that “on Sabbaths and festival days no trial or judgment may be held;” but on the other hand it contains directions and regulations for the meetings and actions of the Sanhedrin on the Sabbaths, and executions of criminals were purposely reserved to great festivals for the sake of stronger example. In our case, the Sanhedrin on the day after the crucifixion, which was a Sabbath and “a great day,” applied to Pilate for a watch and caused the sepulchre to be sealed, Matt. 27:62 sq.

(160): See Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 446, and in Herzog, vol. XXI. 550; and especially the carefully prepared astronomical tables of new and full moons by Prof. Adams, in McClellan, I. 493, who devoutly exults in the result of the crucial test of astronomical calculation which makes the very heavens, after the roll of centuries, bear witness to the harmony of the Gospels.

(161): Well says Hausrath (Preface to 2nd ed. of vol. I. p. ix) against the mythical theory: “Für die poëtische Welt der religiösen Sage ist innerhalb einer rein historischen Darstellung kein Raum; ihre Gebilde verbleichen vor einem geschichtlich hellen Hintergrund …. Wenn wir die heilige Geschichte als Bruchstück einer allgemeinen Geschichte nachweisen und zeigen können, wie die Ränder passen, wenn wir die abgerissenen Fäden, die sie mit der profanen Welt verbanden, wieder aufzufinden vermögen, dann ist die Meinung ausgeschlossen, diese Geschichte sei der schöne Traum eines späteren Geschlechtes gewesen.”

(162): The average length of Palestine is 150 miles, the average breadth east and west of the Jordan to the Mediterranean, from 80 to 90 miles, the number of square miles from 12,000 to 13,000. The State of Maryland has 11,124, Switzerland 15,992, Scotland 30,695 English square miles.

(163): The tradition, which locates the Temptation on the barren and dreary mount Quarantania, a few miles northwest of Jericho, is of late date. Paul also probably went, after his conversion, as far as Mount Sinai during the three years of repose and preparation “in Arabia,”Gal. 1:17, comp. 4:24.

(164): W. Hepworth Dixon (The Holy Land, ch. 14) ingeniously pleads for the traditional cave, and the identity of the inn of the Nativity with the patrimony of Boaz and the home of David.

(165): We add the vivid description of Renan (Vie de Jésus, Ch. II. p. 25) from personal observation: “Nazareth was a small town, situated in a fold of land broadly open at the summit of the group of mountains which closes on the north the plain of Esdraëlon. The population is now from three to four [probably five to six] thousand, and it cannot have changed very much. It is quite cold in winter and the climate is very healthy. The town, like all the Jewish villages of the time, was a mass of dwellings built without style, and must have presented the same poor and uninteresting appearance as the villages in Semitic countries. The houses, from all that appears, did not differ much from those cubes of stone, without interior or exterior elegance, which now cover the richest portion of the Lebanon, and which, in the midst of vines and fig-trees, are nevertheless very pleasant. The environs, moreover, are charming, and no place in the world was so well adapted to dreams of absolute happiness (nul endroit du monde ne fut si bien fait pour les rêves de l’absolu bonheur). Even in our days, Nazareth is a delightful sojourn, the only place perhaps in Palestine where the soul feels a little relieved of the burden which weighs upon it in the midst of this unequalled desolation. The people are friendly and good-natured; the gardens are fresh and green. Antonius Martyr, at the end of the sixth century, draws an enchanting picture of the fertility of the environs, which he compares to paradise. Some valleys on the western side fully justify his description. The fountain about which the life and gayety of the little town formerly centered, has been destroyed; its broken channels now give but a turbid water. But the beauty of the women who gathered there at night, this beauty which was already remarked in the sixth century, and in which was seen the gift of the Virgin Mary, has been surprisingly well preserved. It is the Syrian type in all its languishing grace. There is no doubt that Mary was there nearly every day and took her place, with her urn upon her shoulder, in the same line with her unremembered countrywomen. Antonius Martyr remarks that the Jewish women, elsewhere disdainful to Christians, are here full of affability. Even at this day religious animosities are less intense at Nazareth than elsewhere.” Comp. also the more elaborate description in Keim, I. 318 sqq., and Tobler’s monograph on Nazareth, Berlin, 1868.

(166): Josephus no doubt greatly exaggerates when he states that there were no less than two hundred and four towns and villages in Galilee (Vita, c. 45, diakovsiai kai; tevssare” kata; th;n Galilaivan eijsi; povlei” kai; kwÀmai), and that the smallest of those villages contained above fifteen thousand inhabitants (Bell. Jud. III. 3, 2). This would give us a population of over three millions for that province alone, while the present population of all Palestine and Syria scarcely amounts to two millions, or forty persons to the square mile (according to Bädeker, Pal. and Syria, 1876, p. 86).

(167): Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-15.

(168): Comp. Fr. Delitzsch: Ein Tag in Capernaum, 2d ed. 1873; Furrer: Die Ortschaften am See Genezareth, in the “Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins,” 1879, pp. 52 sqq.: my article on Capernaum, ibid. 1878, pp. 216 sqq. and in the “Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund” for July, 1879, pp. 131 sqq., with the observations thereon by Lieut. Kitchener, who agrees with Dr. Robinson in locating Capernaum Khan Minyeh, although there are no ruins there at all to be compared with those of Tell Hum.

(169): The present mongrel population of Jerusalem—Moslems, Jews, and Christians of all denominations, though mostly Greek—scarcely exceeds 30,000, while at the time of Christ it must have exceeded 100,000, even if we make a large deduction from the figures of Josephus, who states that on a Passover under the governorship of Cestius Gallus 256,500 paschal lambs were slain, and that at the destruction of the City, a.d. 70, 1,100,000 Jews perished and 97,000 were sold into slavery (including 600,000 strangers who had crowded into the doomed city). Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3.

(170): Matt. 28:6.

(171): Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44.

(172): Renan sums up the results of his personal observations as director of the scientific commission for the exploration of ancient Phoenicia in 1860 and 1861, in the following memorable confession (Vie de Jêsus, Introd. p. liii.).”J’ai traversê dans tous les sens la province évangelique; j’ai visitê Jérusalem, Hêbron et la Samarie;presque aucune localité importante de l’histoire de Jésus ne m’a échappé. Toute cette histoire qui, à distance, semble flotter dans les nuages d’un monde sans réalité, prit ainsi un corps, une solidité qui m’étonnèrent. L’accord frappant des textes et des lieux, la merveilleuse harmonie de l’idéal évangélique avec le paysage qui lui servit de cadre furent pour moi comme une révélation. J’eus devant les yeux un cinquième évangile, lacéré, mais lisible encore, et désormais, à travers les récits de Matthieu et de Marc, au lieu d’un être abstrait, qu’on dirait n’avoir jamais existé, je vis une admirable figure humaine vivre, se mouvoir.” His familiarity with the Orient accounts for the fact that this brilliant writer leaves much more historical foundation for the gospel history than his predecessorStrauss, who never saw Palestine.

(173): Matt. 8:5-13; 15:21-28; Luke 7:1-9.

(174): John 4:5-42; Luke 10:30-37.

(175): John 12:20-32

(176): Matt. 10:5, 6; 15:14.

(177): Josephus, Bell. Jud. III. c. 3, § 2: “These two Galilees, of so great largeness, and encompassed with so many nations of foreigners, have been always able to make a strong resistance on all occasions of war; for the Galileans are inured to war from their infancy, and have been always very numerous; nor hath the country ever been destitute of men of courage, or wanted a numerous set of them: for their soil is universally rich and fruitful, and full of the plantations of trees of all sorts, insomuch that it invites the most slothful to take pains in its cultivation by its fruitfulness: accordingly it is all cultivated by its inhabitants, and no part of it lies idle. Moreover, the cities lie here very thick, and the very many villages there are so full of people, by richness of their soil, that the very least of them contained above fifteen thousand inhabitants (?).”

(178): John 1:46;.7:52; Matt. 4:16. The Sanhedrists forgot in their blind passion that Jonah was from Galilee. After the fall of Jerusalem Tiberias became the headquarters of Hebrew learning and the birthplace of the Talmud.

(179): rJabbiv from br’ or with the suff yBir’ My prince, lord, kujrio”) sixteen times in the N. T.,. rJabboniv orrJabbouniv twice; didavskalo” (variously rendered in the E. V. teacher, doctor, and mostly master) about forty times; ejpistavth”(rendered master) six times, kaqhghthv” (rendered master) once in Matt. 23:10 (the text rec. also 10:8, where didavskalo” is the correct reading). Other designations of these teachers in the N. T. are grammatei’” , nomikoiv, nomodidavskaloi. Josephus calls them sofistaiv, iJerogrammatei’”, patrivwn ejxhghtai; novmwn, the Mishna symikj} and syrip]/s scholars. See Schürer, p. 441.

(180): Matt. 23:8; comp. Mark 12:38, 39; Luke 11:43; 20:46.

(181): The same, however, was the case with Greek and Roman teachers before Vespasian, who was the first to introduce a regular salary. I was told in Cairo that the professors of the great Mohammedan University likewise teach gratuitously.

(182): Ecclesiasticus 38:24-34: “The wisdom of a learned man cometh by opportunity of leisure; and he that hath little business shall become wise. How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plough,” etc.

(183): See FR. Delitzsch: Jüdisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu. Erlangen, third ed. revised, 1879. He states (p. 77) that more than one hundred Rabbis who figure in the Talmud carried on a trade and were known by it, as R. Oshaja the shoemaker, R. Abba the tailor, R. Juda the baker, R. Abba Josef the architect, R. Chana the banker, R. Abba Shaul the grave-digger, R. Abba Oshaja the fuller, R. Abin the carpenter, etc. He remarks (p. 23): “The Jews have always been an industrious people and behind no other in impulse, ability and inventiveness for restless activity; agriculture and trade were their chief occupations before the dissolution of their political independence; only in consequence of their dispersion and the contraction of their energies have they become a people of sharpers and peddlers and taken the place of the old Phoenicians.” But the talent and disposition for sharp bargains was inherited from their father Jacob, and turned the temple of God into “a house of merchandise.” Christ charges the Pharisees with avarice which led them to “devour widows’ houses.” Comp. Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 16:14; 20:47.

(184): Mark 6:3 Jesus is called, by his neighbors, “the carpenter”oJ tevktwn), Matt. 13:55 “the carpenter’s son.”

(185): Luke 8:3 Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:41; John 13:29. Among the pious women who ministered to Jesus was also Joanna, the wife of Chuzas, King Herod’s steward. To her may be traced the vivid circumstantial description of the dancing scene at Herod’s feast and the execution of John the Baptist, Mark 6:14-29.

(186): Acts 18:3; 20:33-35; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8; 2 Cor. 11:7-9.

(187): John 18:20. Comp. Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 21:23; 26:55; Mark 1:21, 39; 14:49; Luke 2:46; 4:14-16, 31, 44; 13:10; 21:37.

(188): Acts 13:14-16; 16:13; 17:2, 3.

(189): Luke 2:46; 5:17; Matt. 5:1; 26:55; John 8:2; Acts 22:3 (“at the feet of Gamaliel”).

(190): Josephus often speaks of this. C. Ap. I. 12: “More than all we are concerned for the education of our youth (paidotrofiva), and we consider the keeping of the laws (to; fulavttein tou;” novmou”) and the corresponding piety (th;n kata; touvtou” paradedomevnhn eujsevbeian) to be the most necessary work of life.”Comp. II. 18; Ant. IV. 8, 12. To the same effect is the testimony of Philo, Legat. ad Cajum. § 16. 31, quoted by Schürer, p. 467.

(191): 2 Tim, 1:5; 3:15; comp. Eph. 6:4.

(192): Vita, § 2.

(193): Schürer, p. 468; and Ginsburg, art. Education, in Kitto’s “Cyc. of Bibl. Liter.,” 3d ed.

(194): Acts 6:9 for the freedmen and the Hellenists and proselytes from different countries. Rabbinical writers estimate the number of synagogues in Jerusalem as high as 480 (i.e. 4 x 10 x 12), which seems incredible.

(195): Luke 4:16-22.

(196): Acts 2:8-12.

(197): Comp. the description of King Josiah’s Passover, 2 Chr. 35:1-19.

(198): The Rabbinical scholasticism reminds one of the admirable description of logic in Goethe’s Faust:”Wer will was Lebendig’s erkennen und beschreiben,/Sucht erst den Geist hinauszutreiben;/Dann hat er die Theile in seiner Hand,/Fehlt leider! nur das geistige Band.“

(199): Matt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13. It is significant that Christ uses the word paravdosi”always in a bad sense of such human doctrines and usages as obscure and virtually set aside the sacred Scriptures. Precisely the same charge was applied by the Reformers to the doctrines of the monks and schoolmen of their day.

(200): Matt. 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33; Luke 9:22, 44, 45; 18:34; 24:21 John 12:34.

(201): See, of older works, Schöttgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae tom. II. (De Messia), of modern works, Schürer, l.c. pp. 563-599, with the literature there quoted; also James Drummond, The Jewish Messiah,Lond. 1877.

(202): Matt. 18:1-6; comp. Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17.

(203): Matt. 11:25-30. This passage, which is found only in Matthew and (in part) in Luke 10:21, 22, is equal to any passage in John. It is a genuine echo of this word when Schiller sings:”Was kein Verstand der Verständigen sieht,/Das übet in Einfalt ein kindlich Gemüth.“

(204): John 1:32-34; comp. 3:34.

(205): Matt. 26:64; John l8:37; Luke23:43.

(206): Luke 9:58; 19:10; Matt. 18:11; 20:17, 28; Mark 2:10, 28; John 1:51; 6:53, and many other passages. The term oJ uiJov” touÀ ajnqrwvpou occurs about 80 times in the Gospels. On its meaning comp. my book on the Person of Christ, pp. 83 sqq. (ed. of 1880).

(207): Matt 16:20-23; Mark 8:30-33; Luke 9:21-27.

(208): Acts 2:24, 32; Rom. 6:4; l0:9; 1 Cor. 15:15; Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 1:21.

(209): John 2:19; 10:17, 18. In like manner the first advent of the Lord is represented as his own voluntary act and as a mission from the Father, John 8:42: ejgwV ejk teou~ ejxh~lqen KaiV hJvkw; oujdeV gaVr ajpj ejmautou~ ejlhvluqa, ajll! ejkei’novvv” meajpevsteilen.)

(210): Rom. 6:9, 10. Neander (Leben Jesu, pp. 596 and 597 of the 6th Germ. ed.) makes some excellent remarks on this inseparable connection between the resurrection and the ascension, and says that the asc ension would stand fast as a supernatural fact even if Luke had not said a word about it. A temporary resurrection followed by another death could never have become the foundation of a church.

(211): 1 Cor. 15:13-19; comp. Rom. 4:25, where Paul represents Christ’s death and resurrection in inseparable connection, as the sum and substance of the whole gospel.

(212): Ewald makes the striking remark (VI. 90) that the resurrection is “the culmination of all the miraculous events which are conceivable from the beginning of history to its close.”

(213): Matt. 16:21-23; 17:9, 22, 23; 20:17-20; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 10, 31, 32 (“they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him”); Luke 9:22, 44, 45; 18:31-34; 24:6-8; John 2:21, 22; 3:14; 8:28; 10:17, 18; 12:32.

(214): The devoted women went to the sepulchre on the first Christian Sabbath, not to see it empty but to embalm the body with spices for its long rest, Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; and when they told the eleven what they saw, their words seemed to them “as idle talk,” and “they disbelieved them,” Luke 24:11. Comp. Matt. 28:17 (“some doubted”); Mark 16: 8 (“they were afraid”); John 20:25.

(215): Dr. Baur states the contrast tersely thus: “Zwischen dem Tod [Jesu]und seiner Auferstehung liegt ein so tiefes undurchdringliches Dunkel, dass man nach so gewaltsam zerrissenem und so wundervoll wiederhergestelltem Zusammenhange sich gleichsam auf einem neuen Schauplatz der Geschichte sieht.“Compare his remarks at the close of this section. Dr. Ewald describes the depression and sudden exaltation of the disciples more fully with his usual force (vol. vi. 54 sqq.). I will quote also the description of Renan, at the beginning of the first chapter of his work, Les Apôtres: “Jésus, quoique parlant sans cesse de résurrection, de nouvelle vie, n’avait jamais dit bien clairement qu’il ressusciterait en sa chair. Les disciples, (dans les premières heures qui suivirent sa mort, n’avaient à cet égard aucune espérance arrétée. Les sentimentsdont ils nous font la naive confidence supposent méme qu’ils croyaient tout fini. Ils pleurent et enterrent leur ami, sinon comme un mort vulgaire, du moins comme une personne dont la perte est irréparable (Marc 16:10; Luc 24:17, 21) ils sont tristes et abattus; l’espoir qu’ils avaient eu de le voir realiser le salut d’Israël est convaincu de vanité; on dirait des hommes qui ont perdu une grande et chère illusion. Mais l’ enthousiasme et l’amour ne connaissent par les situations sans issue. Ils se jouentde l’impossible, et plutot que d’abdiquer l’espérance, ils font violence à toute réalité,” etc.

(216): Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24;46-48; John 20:21-23; Acts 1:8.

(217): So Meyer says, who is one of the fairest as well as most careful exegetes (Com. on John, 5th Germ. ed., p. 643). I will add the observations of Canon Farrar (Life of Christ, vol. II 432): “The lacunae, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences, the subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations, render all harmonies at the best uncertain. Our belief in the resurrection, as an historic fact, as absolutely well attested to us by subsequent and contemporary circumstances as any other event in history, rests on grounds far deeper, wider, more spiritual, more eternal, than can be shaken by divergences of which we can only say that they are not necessarily contradictions, but of which the true solution is no longer attainable. Hence the ’ten discrepancies’ which have been dwelt on since the days of Celsus, have never for one hour shaken the faith of Christendom. The phenomena presented by the narratives are exactly such as we should expect, derived as they are from different witnesses, preserved at first in oral tradition only, and written 1,800 years ago at a period when minute circumstantial accuracy, distinguished from perfect truthfulness, was little regarded. St. Paul, surely no imbecile or credulous enthusiast, vouches, both for the reality of the appearances, and also for the fact that the vision by which he was himself converted came, at a long interval after the rest, to him as to the ’abortive-born’ of the apostolic family (1 Cor. 15:4-8). If the narratives of Christ’s appearance to his disciples were inventions, how came they to possess the severe and simple character which shows no tinge of religious excitement? If those appearances were purely subjective, how can we account for their sudden, rapid, and total cessation ? As Lange finely says, the great fugue of the first Easter tidings has not come to us as a ’monotonous chorale,’ and mere boyish verbal criticism cannot understand the common feeling and harmony which inspire the individual vibrations of those enthusiastic and multitudinous voices (vol. V. 61). Professor Westcott, with his usual profundity, and insight, points out the differences of purpose in the narrative of the four Evangelists. St. Matthew dwells chiefly on the majesty and glory of the Resurrection; St. Mark, both in the original part and in the addition (Mark 16:9-20), insists upon it as a fact; St. Luke, as a spiritual necessity; St. John, as a touchstone of character (Introd. 310-315).

(218): This theory was invented by the Jewish priests who crucified the Lord, and knew it to be false, Matt. 27:62-66; 28:12-15. The lie was repeated and believed, like many other lies, by credulous infidels, first by malignant Jews at the time of Justin Martyr, then by Celsus, who learned it from them, but wavered between it and the vision-theory, and was renewed in the eighteenth century by Reimarus in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments. Salvador, a French Jew, has again revived and modified it by assuming (according to Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 132) that Jesus was justly crucified, and was saved by the wife of Pilate through Joseph of Arimathaea or some Galilean women; that he retired among the Essenes and appeared secretly to a few of his disciples. (See his Jésus Christ et sa doctrine, Par. 1838.) Strauss formerly defended the vision-hypothesis (see below), but at the close of his life, when he exchanged his idealism and pantheism for materialism and atheism, he seems to have relapsed into this disgraceful theory of fraud; for in his Old and New Faith (1873) he was not ashamed to call the resurrection of Christ “a world-historical humbug.” Truth or falsehood: there is no middle ground.

(219): The Scheintod-Hypothese (as the Germans call it) was ably advocated by Paulus of Heidelberg (1800), and modified by Gfrörer (1838), who afterwards became a Roman Catholic. We are pained to add Dr. Hase (Gesch. Jesu, 1876, p. 601), who finds it necessary, however, to call to aid a “special providence,” to maintain some sort of consistency with his former advocacy of the miracle of the resurrection, when he truly said (Leben Jesu, p. 269, 5th ed. 1865): “Sonach ruht die Wahrheit der Auferstehung unerschütterlich auf dem Zeugnisse, ja auf dem Dasein der apostolischen Kirche.“

(220): Dr. Strauss (in his second Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 298) thus strikingly and conclusively refutes the swoon-theory: “Ein halbtodt aus dem Grabe Hervorgekrochener, siech Umherschleichender, der ärztlichen Pflege, des Verbandes, der Stärkung und Schonung Bedürftiger, und am Ende doch dem Leiden Erliegender konnte auf die Jünger unmöglich den Eindruck des Sieqers über Tod und Grab, des Lebensfürsten machen, der ihrem spätern Auftreten zu Grunde lag. Ein solches Wiederaufleben hätte den Eindruck, den er im Leben und Tode auf sie gemacht hatte, nur schwächen, denselben höchstens elegisch ausklingen lassen, unmöglich aber ihre Trauer in Beigeisterung verwandeln, ihre Verehrung zur Anbetung steigern können.” Dr. Hase (p. 603) unjustly calls this exposure of the absurdity of his own view, “Straussische Tendenzmalerei.“Even more effective is the refutation of the swoon-theory by Dr. Keim (Leben Jesu v. Naz. III. 576): “Und dann das Unmöglichste: der arme, schwache, kranke, mühsam auf den Füssen erhaltene, versteckte, verkleidete, schliesslich hinsterbende Jesus ein Gegenstand des Glaubens, des Hochgefühles, des Triumphes seiner Anhänger, ein auferstandener Sieger und Gottessohn! In der That hier beginnt die Theorie armselig, abgeschmackt, ja verwerflich zu werden, indem sie die Apostel als arme Betrogene, oder gar mit Jesus selber als Betrüger zeigt. Denn vom Scheintod hatte man auch damals einen Begriff, und die Lage Jesu musste zeigen, dass hier von Auferstehung nicht die Rede war; hielt man ihn doch für auferstanden, gab er sich selbst als auferstanden, so. fehlte das nüchterne Denken, und hütete er sich gar, seinen Zustand zu verrathen, so fehlte am Ende auch die Ehrlichkeit. Aus allen diesen Gründen ist der Scheintod von der Neuzeit fast ausnahmslos verworfen worden.”

(221): The vision-hypothesis (Visions-Hypothese)was first suggested by the heathen Celsus (see Keim, III. 577), and in a more respectful form by the Jewish philosopher Spinoza, and elaborately carried out by Strauss and Renan, with the characteristic difference, however, that Strauss traces the resurrection dream to the apostles in Galilee, Renan (after Celsus) to Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem, saying, in his Life of Jesus (almost blasphemously), that “the passion of a hallucinated woman gave to the world a risen God!” In his work on the Apostles, Renan enters more fully into the question and again emphasizes, in the genuine style of a French novelist, the part of the Magdalene.”La gloire de la résurrection (he says, p. 13) appartient à Marie de, Magdala. Apres Jésus, c’est Marie qui a le plus fait pour la fondation du christianisme. L’ombre créée par les sens délicats de Madeleine plane encore sur le monde …. Sa grande affirmation de femme: ’Il est resuscité!’ a été la base de la foi de l’humanité.”The vision-theory has also been adopted and defended by Zeller, Holsten (in an able treatise on the Gospel of Paul and Peter, 1868), Lang, Volkmar, Réville, Scholten, Meijboom, Kuenen, Hooykaas. Comp. Keim, III. 579 sqq. Among English writers the anonymous author of Supernatural Religion is its chief champion, and states it in these words (vol. III. 526, Lond. ed. of 1879): “The explanation which we offer, and which has long been adopted in various forms by able critics” [among whom, in a foot-note, he falsely quotes Ewald] “is, that doubtless Jesus was seen Gr. (wjvfqh), but the vision was not real and objective, but illusory and subjective; that is to say, Jesus was not himself seen, but only a representation of Jesus within the minds of the beholders.” On the other hand Ewald, Schenkel, Alex. Schweizer, and Keim have essentially modified the theory by giving the resurrection-visions an objective character and representing them as real though purely spiritual manifestations of the exalted Christ from heaven. Hase calls this view happily a Verhimmelung der Visionshypothese (Gesch. Jesu, p. 597). It is certainly a great improvement and a more than half-way approach to the truth, but it breaks on the rock of the empty sepulchre. It does not and cannot tell us what became of the body of Christ.

(222): The author of Supernatural Religion (III. 530), calls to aid even Luther’s vision of the devil on the Wartburg, and especially the apparition of Lord Byron after his death to Sir Walter Scott in clear moonshine; and he fancies that in the first century it would have been mistaken for reality.

(223): It is utterly baseless when Ewald and Renan extend these visions of Christ for months and years.”Ces grands rêves mélancoliques,” says Renan (Les Apötres, 34, 36), “ces entretiens sans cesse interrompus et recommecés avec le mort chéri remplissaient les jours et les mois …. Près d’un an s’écoula dans cette vie suspendue entre le ciel et la terre. Le charme, loin de décroître, augmentait,” etc. Even Keim, III 598, protests against this view.

脚注

  1. 《路加福音》2:52。 ↩
  2. 《希伯来书》5:8, 9。 ↩
  3. 参见考珀（Cowper），l.c. 第212-214页。 ↩
  4. 《马可福音》6:2, 3；《马太福音》13:54-56；《约翰福音》7:15。 ↩
  5. 《约翰福音》12:32。 ↩
  6. 奥古斯丁（Augustine）：“Deus; quid gloriosus? Caro; quid vilius? Deus in carne; quid mirabilius?”（“神，有什么比祂更荣耀？肉身，有什么比它更卑贱？神在肉身中，有什么比这更奇妙？”） ↩
  7. 关于拿破仑对基督神性的证词，参见贝尔谢（Bersier）和卢特罗斯（Lutteroth）附在我《基督位格论》第十二版（1882年）上的书信，第284页，以及第219页及之后。据报道，拿破仑在魏玛的一次宫廷舞会上，在埃尔福特会议期间，曾问诗人维兰德（Wieland），他是否怀疑耶稣曾经活过；维兰德迅速而坚定地回答否定，并补充说，同样有权利在一千年后，人们可能会否认拿破仑的存在或耶拿战役。皇帝笑了，说，“très-bien!”（“非常好！”）。这个问题不是为了表达怀疑，而是为了考验诗人的信仰。哈斯博士（Dr. Hase）就是从听过这次谈话的穆勒（Müller）首相口中得到这个报道的。《耶稣历史》（Geschichte Jesu,）第9页。 ↩
  8. 教父们区分了“诞生”（γένεσις, 《马太福音》1:18）和“道成肉身”（σάρκωσις），并将道成肉身等同于受孕或报喜。自查理曼大帝时代以来，这两个术语似乎已同义使用。参见伊德勒（Ideler），《年代学》（Chronol.），第二卷，第383页，以及吉塞勒（Gieseler），第一卷，第70页（德语第四版）。 ↩
  9. 约瑟夫斯（Jos.），《犹太古史》（Antiqu.），第十七卷，第八章，第一节：“希律去世……自他杀害安提帕特斯[原文误：安提柯那斯]（公元前37年）以来，他统治了三十四年，但自他被罗马人宣布为王（公元前40年）以来，他统治了三十七年。”参见《犹太战争》（Bell. Jud.），第一卷，第三十三章，第八节，以及其他段落中的相同说法。 ↩
  10. 根据约瑟夫斯，《犹太古史》（Antiqu.）第十七卷，第六章，第四节：“那夜发生了月食。”值得注意的是，约瑟夫斯在他的任何著作中都没有提到其他月食。 ↩
  11. 《马太福音》2:16：“所有的男婴……从两岁及以下，是根据他从博士们那里仔细查问的时间。”（πávταϛ τοὺϛ παῖδοϛ … ἀπὸ διετοῦϛ καἰ κατωτέρω κατὰ τόν χρόνον ὃν ἠκρίβωσεν παρὰ τῶν μάγων.） ↩
  12. 传统在这里荒谬地将无辜者的数量夸大到20,000名，正如位于伯利恒圣诞教堂中那根巨大的柱子上所刻的那样，这根柱子标志着他们假定的殉道地点。二十名烈士（XX M.[artyres], i.e., martyrs）变成了两万名（XX M.[ilia], i.e., twenty thousands）。 ↩
  13. 马克罗比乌斯（Macrob.），《农神节》（Sat.），第二卷，第四节：“奥古斯都听到希律，犹太人的王，在叙利亚下令屠杀‘两岁及以下的孩子’（inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum），其中他自己的儿子也被杀害时，他说：‘做希律的猪总比做他的儿子好。’”（“Augustus, cum audisset, inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum [perhaps taken from Matt. 2:16, Vulg.: a bimatu et infra]: jussit interfici, filium quoque eius occisum, ait: melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium.”）这是利用了希腊语中发音相似的词语“猪”（ὗς）和“儿子”（υἱός）的双关语。开普勒（Kepler）已经引用这段话来证实《马太福音》。 ↩
  14. 塔西佗（Tacitus）（《历史》Hist., v. 13）和苏埃托尼乌斯（Suetonius）（《维斯帕先传》Vespas., c. 4）都提到了在犹太战争时期和之前，这种普遍的期待（苏埃托尼乌斯称其为一种“古老而持久的观点”vetus et constans opinio），但错误地将其归于罗马皇帝维斯帕先和提图斯。在这方面，异教徒历史学家效仿了约瑟夫斯，约瑟夫斯清楚并相信他人民的弥赛亚希望（参见《古史》Ant., iv. 6, 5; x. 10, 4; 11, 7），但却无耻地背叛和歪曲了它们，说（《犹太战争》Bell. Jud. vi. 5, 4）：“最能鼓舞犹太人发动这场战争的是一个在他们的圣书中发现的‘模棱两可’的预言，即‘大约在那个时候，有一个人将从他们的国家出来，成为可居住世界的统治者。’犹太人认为这个预言特别指的是他们自己，许多智者因此被他们的决心所欺骗。现在，这个预言无疑指的是维斯帕先的统治，他在犹太被任命为皇帝。”参见豪斯拉特（Hausrath），《新约时代历史》（N.T. Ztgesch.），第一卷，第173页。在耶路撒冷被毁后，弥赛亚希望持续了很久。在哈德良（Hadrian）统治下（公元135年），领导叛乱的伪弥赛亚自称“巴尔·科赫巴”（Bar-Cochba），即“星之子”，并发行了带有星星的硬币，可能是在影射《民数记》24:17。当他的真实身份被揭露后，他的名字被改成了“巴尔·科西巴”（Bar-Cosiba），即“谎言之子”。 ↩
  15. 在他的《基督诞生年报告》（Bericht vom Geburtsjahr Christi）开头（《作品集》，第四卷，第204页），他用这些话描述这颗新星：“一颗不寻常、非常明亮和美丽的星星……它像是有史以来用眼睛看到的最美丽、最辉煌的火炬，当它被强风吹动时，会燃烧和闪烁，就在三个最高行星土星、木星和火星旁边。”他称这个现象为“上帝一个非常伟大的奇迹”。关于整个现象的更详细描述，他在他的著作《论蛇夫座足部的新星》（De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarii）中给出（《作品集》，第二卷，第575页及之后，以及第801页及之后，弗里施（Frisch）编辑）。厄珀姆（Upham）（《智者》，The Wise Men，纽约，1869年，第145页）说：“第谷·布拉赫（Tycho de Brahe）在1572年10月11日晚上在仙后座观察到了类似的奇迹。这些不是我们大气层内的发光体；不在太阳系内或附近；它们位于恒星区域。它们每一个都变得越来越明亮，直到像一颗行星一样闪耀。然后它的光泽减弱，直到它不再可见——一个在1574年3月，另一个在1606年2月。光线先是白色，然后黄色，然后红色，然后暗淡，然后熄灭了。”关于临时恒星，参见赫歇尔（Herschel）的《天文学》（Astronomy），第十二章。 ↩
  16. 博学的犹太拉比阿巴巴内尔（Abarbanel），在他的《但以理书注释》（名为《救恩的泉源》Ma’jne hajeshuah，参见《以赛亚书》12:3），该书于1547年出版，比开普勒的计算早了五十多年，他说，公元2365年（犹太历）在摩西出生前三年，发生了这样一次合相，并且在弥赛亚出生前（公元5224年，或公元1463年）将再次出现。伊德勒和维塞勒（Wieseler）推测，这种占星信仰在基督时代就已经存在于犹太人中。 ↩
  17. 这已被迪安·奥尔福德（Dean Alford）等人接受。参见他的《马太福音注释》第六版（1868年）第二章第二节的注释，其中有普里查德（Rev. C. Pritchard）提供的更正。麦克莱伦（McClellan）（《新约》New Test., I, 402）假设木星和土星的合相是预示性的，并与施洗约翰受孕（公元748年10月）相吻合，而开普勒的“新星”则是弥赛亚的星，在一年后出现。 ↩
  18. 参见《民数记》4:3, 35, 39, 43, 47。 ↩
  19. 在新修订版中，《路加福音》3:1, 23的段落被翻译为：“凯撒提比略在位第十五年，本丢·彼拉多作犹太巡抚，希律作加利利分封的王，他兄弟腓力作以土利亚和特拉可尼地方的分封的王，吕撒尼亚作亚比利尼分封的王，在大祭司亚那和该亚法执政的时候，上帝的话临到撒迦利亚的儿子约翰，在旷野里。……耶稣开头传道，年纪约有三十岁。”这个陈述对于当时的受过教育的读者来说应该是完全可以理解的。 ↩
  20. 对“ αὐτὸς ἦν ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ”的不同解释并没有改变太多结果，但“ὡσεὶ”（约）留下了一些或多或少的余地。参见麦克莱伦（McClellan），第一卷，第404页。 ↩
  21. 他用同样的词语来指本丢·彼拉多（ἡγεμονεύοντος）。 祖姆普特（Zumpt）在《基督诞生年》（Geburtsjahr Christi）中说（第296页）：“Eigentlich verstanden, bezeichnet ἡγεμονία die Würde des militärischen Befehlshabers und des Regenten über die Provinzen. Hätte Lucas ’Augustus Kaiser’ (αὐτοκράτωρ) oder auch nur ’Herrscher’ (ἄρχων) gesagt, so würde man an eine Zählung von Tiberius’ Provincialverwaltung weniger denken können.”（“严格来说，ἡγεμονία指的是军事指挥官和各省总督的尊严。 如果路加用了‘奥古斯都皇帝’（αὐτοκράτωρ）或者仅仅是‘统治者’（ἄρχων），那么人们就不会太在意从提比略的省份管理来计算了。”） ↩
  22. 关于早期罗马皇帝和希律一世，不同的计算方法并不罕见。 参见上文第112页，祖姆普特，l.c. 第282页及之后，以及安德鲁斯（Andrews），第27页。 苏埃托尼乌斯（Suetonius）（《提比略传》Tib., 33）和塔西佗（Tacitus）（《编年史》Annal., vi. 51）说，提比略在他的统治第23年去世，指的是他的单独统治； 但也有迹象表明，至少在埃及和各省份有另一种计算方式，因为提比略作为实际皇帝的权威在那里比在罗马更受感受。 在叙利亚安提阿有日期为公元765年（公元12年）的硬币，上面有提比略的头像和铭文“Καισαρ Σεβαστος”（奥古斯都）。 支持从共同执政期开始计算的是厄舍尔（Ussher）、本格尔（Bengel）、拉德纳（Lardner）、格雷斯韦尔（Greswell）、安德鲁斯、祖姆普特、维塞勒、麦克莱伦； 支持从单独统治期开始计算的是莱特富特（Lightfoot）、埃瓦尔德、布朗（Browne）。 维塞勒曾认为路加指的是约翰被监禁的时间，而不是他事工的开始，但他改变了观点； 参见他在赫尔佐格（Herzog）的《百科全书》（Encykl.）第二十一卷，第547页的文章。 ↩
  23. 安德鲁斯，l.c. 第28页，总结了他对这一点的调查：“我们发现路加的陈述所呈现的时间困难有三种解决方案：第一，提比略在位第15年是从奥古斯都去世时算起，从公元781年8月到782年8月。 在这一年，施洗约翰被监禁了，但主的传道事工始于780年，是在这次监禁之前，那时他约有三十岁。 第二，第15年从奥古斯都去世时算起，但‘主约有三十岁’这句话应广义理解，他可能在三十岁到三十五岁之间的任何年龄开始事工。 第三，第15年从提比略与奥古斯都共同执政的那年算起，因此是779年。 在这种情况下，‘他约有三十岁’这句话可以严格地理解，而‘上帝的话临到约翰’这句话可以指他事工的开始。” ↩
  24. 狄奥尼修斯可能（我们对此并不确定）是从提比略的单独统治期开始计算的； 但即使那样，也不会带我们到754年，并且会使路加与马太和自己相矛盾。 参见哈斯（Hase）的《耶稣历史》（Gesch. Jesu），第209页，他奇怪地捍卫了狄奥尼修斯纪元，但牺牲了马太的日期，以及耶稣童年的整个历史。 关于凯姆（Keim）的观点，参见舒勒（Schürer），第242页。 ↩
  25. 参见舒勒（Schürer）直到1874年的文献，第262页，他将24页专门用于此主题。 关于居里纽（Quirinius）的户口调查，最重要的作者是胡什克（Huschke）（一位博学的法学家，1840年和1847年发表了两篇论文）、维塞勒（Wieseler）（1843年和1869年）和祖姆普特（Zumpt）（1854年和1869年）。 另可参考普拉姆普特雷（Dr. Plumptre）的文章《征税》（Taxing），由伍尔西（Dr. Woolsey）补充，收录在史密斯（Smith）的《圣经词典》（Bible Dictionary）中（哈克特和阿博特编辑版），第四卷，第3185页，以及J.B.麦克莱伦（J.B. McClellan），《新约》（New Test.），第一卷，第392页。 ↩
  26. 根据蒂申多夫、韦斯科特和霍特的最新文本，这是原文的正确含义（他们与B D一起省略了冠词“ἡ”）： αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου。（意为：这次户口调查是在居里纽作叙利亚总督时第一次进行的。）《武加大译本》（Vulg.）：Haec descriptio prima facta est a praeside Syriae Cyrino. 英文版本“this taxing was first made when,”是不合语法的，需要πρῶτον或πρῶτα而不是πρώτη。 路加要么想说在犹太没有之前的登记，要么更可能他脑海中有在居里纽第二次担任总督时进行的第二次、更广为人知的户口调查，他在《使徒行传》5:37中也提到了这一点。 参见下文。 居里纽（Kurhvnio”）是正确的拼写（斯特拉博（Strabo）、约瑟夫斯、塔西佗、殉道者游斯丁），而不是Quirinus，后者也是一个罗马名字；因此造成了混淆。 （参见魏斯（Weiss）在迈耶（Meyer）的《路加福音》第六版，第286页）。 他的全名是普布利乌斯·苏尔皮修斯·居里纽（Publius Sulpicius Quirinius）（塔西佗，《编年史》，Annal., iii 48；苏埃托尼乌斯，《提比略传》，Tiber., 49）。 他在公元742年担任执政官，747年在非洲领导一支军队，并于公元21年在罗马去世。 约瑟夫斯在他的《古史》第十八卷开头提到了他。 在祖姆普特（Zumpt）的书中可以找到关于他的详细介绍，第43-71页。 ↩
  27. 乌尔比安（Ulpian），由祖姆普特引用，《基督诞生年》（Geburtsjahr Christi），第203页及之后。 ↩
  28. 约瑟夫斯，《古史》（Antiqu.），第十七卷，第十三章，第五节；第十八卷，第一章，第一节。 这里提到的户口调查显然与路加在《使徒行传》5:37中所指的户口调查是同一个：“在这人之后，报名上册的时候，加利利人犹大起来。” 约瑟夫斯称他为“加利利人犹大”，因为他来自下加利利提斯的高马拉； 但在《古史》第二十卷，第五章，第二节和《犹太战争》第二卷，第八章，第一节中，他也称他为加利利人。 在这种情况下，路加的说法完全正确，而且一个像路加一样消息灵通的作者，不大可能混淆两次相隔十年的户口调查。 ↩
  29. 解决这个难题的通常方法是赋予“πρώτη”比“在居里纽担任总督之前”更广泛的含义，正如πρῶτος τίνος被用于表示“比…更早”一样（尽管没有与分词连用），《约翰福音》1:15, 30；15:18。 厄舍尔（Ussher）、胡什克（Huschke）、托卢克（Tholuck）、维塞勒（Wieseler）、卡斯帕里（Caspari）、埃瓦尔德（Ewald）都持此观点。 但这可以用“πρίν”或“πρὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονεύειν”更自然和清晰地表达（如在《路加福音》》2:21；12:15；《使徒行传》23:15）。 保卢斯（Paulus）、埃布拉德（Ebrard）、朗格（Lange）、戈德（Godet）等人强调“αὕτη”（ipsa），并解释说：户口调查的“法令”是在基督出生时颁布的，但所谓的第一次“户口调查本身”直到居里纽担任总督时才进行（十年后）。 这在《路加福音》2:3中是不可能的，该节报告了法令的执行情况，即《路加福音》2:1。 布朗（Browne）（第46页）和其他人将“ἡγεμονεύειν”理解为更广泛的含义，包括居里纽作为“凯撒特使”（legatus Caesaris）的特别委员会。 ↩
  30. 《编年史》（Annal.），第三卷，第48节，由A.W.祖姆普特在一篇拉丁语论文中解释：《从奥古斯都到韦斯帕先的罗马叙利亚行省》（De Syria Romanorum provincia ab Caesare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum），收录在《碑文评注》（Comment. Epigraph.），柏林，1854年，第二卷，第88-125页，并得到莫姆森（Mommsen）在《神圣奥古斯都的功绩》（Res gestae divi Augusti）中第121-124页的认可。 祖姆普特在他的《基督诞生年》（Das Geburtsjahr Christi，1869年，第1-90页）中更详细地阐述了他的观点。 厄舍尔、桑克莱门特、伊德勒（第二卷，第397页）和布朗（第46页）也以同样的方式理解塔西佗。 ↩
  31. 首次出版于佛罗伦萨，1765年，然后由桑克莱门特（《论对通用纪元的修正》De vulg. aerae Emendat. 罗马，1793年），更正版由伯格曼（Bergmann）和莫姆森（Mommsen）出版：《关于普布利乌斯·苏尔皮修斯·居里纽斯相关拉丁文碑文的论述》（De inscriptione Latina, ad P. Sulpicium Quirinium referenda），柏林，1851年。 莫姆森在《奥古斯都的功绩》（Res gestae Augusti，柏林，1865年，第111-126页）附录中再次讨论了它。 碑文有残缺，上面写着：“…Pro. Consul. Asiam. Provinciam. Op[tinuit legatus]. Divi. Augusti [i]terum（意为：再次，第二次） Syriam. Et. Ph[oenicem administravit, or, obtinuit].” 名字被抹去了。 祖姆普特认为它指的是盖尤斯·森提乌斯·萨图尼努斯（C. Sentius Saturninus）（他在居里纽之前，但未被知晓曾两次担任叙利亚总督），伯格曼、莫姆森和梅里韦尔（Merivale）则认为指的是居里纽（就像桑克莱门特在1793年和伊德勒在1826年所做的那样）。 尽管如此，莫姆森否认这一发现对解决路加福音中的困难有任何积极作用，而祖姆普特则捍卫了福音书作者的实质性准确性。 ↩
  32. 约瑟夫斯，《古史》（Antiqu.），第十七卷，第十一章，第一节；塔西佗，《历史》（Hist.），第五卷，第九节：“在希律去世后……一个名叫西蒙的人篡夺了王权；他被昆提利乌斯·瓦鲁斯，当时叙利亚的总督，惩罚了”等。 ↩
  33. 在安卡拉的纪念碑上提到了三次户口调查，分别在公元726、748和767年； 狄翁·卡修斯（Dion Cassius）提到了一次在757年意大利的户口调查； 其他在高卢的户口调查被定为727、741、767年； 特土良，一位博学的法学家，谈到了一次在公元749年由森提乌斯·萨图尼努斯在犹太进行的户口调查； 这很可能就是路加所指的那次。 参见格鲁特（Gruter）、胡什克（Huschke）、祖姆普特、普拉姆普特雷，l.c. ↩
  34. 苏埃托尼乌斯（Suetonius），《奥古斯都传》（Aug.）28, 101；塔西佗，《编年史》（Annal.），第一卷，第11节；狄奥·卡修斯（Dio Cassius），第五十二卷，第30节；第五十六卷，第33节。 根据塔西佗的说法，这份简报包含了：“opes publicae quantum civium sociorumque in armis [这将包括希律], quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones. Quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus, addideratque consilium coërcendi intra terminos imperii, incertum metu an per invidiam” （“公共财富、武装公民和盟友的数量、舰队、王国、行省、贡品或税收，以及需求和慷慨。 奥古斯都亲手写下了所有这些，并补充了将帝国限制在边界内的建议，不确定是出于恐惧还是嫉妒。”） ↩
  35. 约瑟夫斯，《古史》（Ant.）第十六卷，第九章，第四节。 可参考马夸特（Marquardt），《罗马国家行政》（Röm. Staatsverwaltung,）第一卷，第249页。 ↩
  36. 这样的法令经常被从刚才引用的苏埃托尼乌斯和塔西佗的段落中推断出来。 约瑟夫斯的沉默并不难解释，因为他并不打算提供一个帝国的历史，他对公元750-760年期间几乎保持沉默，而且他不像路加那样是一位公正的历史学家，也不值得更多的信任。 卡西奥多罗斯（Cassiodorus）（《杂录》Variarum, iii. 52）和苏伊达斯（Suidas）（s. v., ἀπογραφή）明确断言了普遍户口调查的事实，并补充了一些并非来自路加的细节； 例如，苏伊达斯说，奥古斯都选了二十名高尚的委员，并将他们派往帝国的各个地方，以收集人口和财产的统计数据，并向国库上交一部分。 因此，胡什克（Huschke）、维塞勒（Wieseler）、祖姆普特（Zumpt）、普拉姆普特雷（Plumptre）和麦克莱伦（McClellan）都接受他们的证词是历史正确的（而舒勒（Schürer）则认为它只是来自路加，但无法解释这些细节）。 维塞勒还引用了安提阿历史学家约翰·马拉拉斯（John Malala）的话，他说，可能根据更早的权威，“奥古斯都在他统治的第39年零第10个月[即公元前5或6年]颁布了一项法令，要求在整个帝国范围内进行一次普遍登记。” 尤利乌斯·凯撒（Julius Caesar）开始了一次对整个帝国的测量，奥古斯都完成了它。 ↩
  37. 不要与卢修斯·沃卢修斯·萨图尼努斯（L. Volusius Saturninus）混淆，后者从硬币上可知，在公元758年（公元4年）曾是叙利亚总督。 ↩
  38. 《驳马西昂》（Adv. Marc.）第四卷，第19节：“但同样确定的是，在奥古斯都统治下，户口调查是在犹太由森提乌斯·萨图尼努斯进行的，在那里他们可以查问他的出身。”（“Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto tunc in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent.”） ↩
  39. 祖姆普特（Zumpt），这位古典学者和考古学家，得出结论（第223页），路加的记载没有任何东西不能从现代研究中获得“完全的历史可能性”（“volle historische Wahrscheinlichkeit”）； 而神学家舒勒（Schürer）仍然表示怀疑（《马太福音》28:17）。 伍尔西博士（Dr. Woolsey）（s. v. “居里纽”Cyrenius，在史密斯的《圣经词典》中，哈克特和阿博特编辑版，第526页），认为“有所收获”。 在文章《征税》（Taxing）中，他说，由叙利亚总督在犹太官员指导下进行的登记，与希律进行的类似登记不会有太大不同，如果管理得当，也不需要引起犹太人的恐慌。 ↩
  40. 约瑟夫斯，《古史》（Antiqu.）第十五卷，第十一章，第一节：“现在希律在他统治的第十八年（ὀκτωκαιδέκατον τῆϛ Ἡρώδου βασιλείαϛ ἐνιαυτοῦ）……承担了一项伟大的工程，即自己建造上帝的殿，并将其提升到最宏伟的高度，他认为这是他所有行动中最光荣的，因为它确实如此，把它建成，这将是他永恒的纪念。” ↩
  41. 《犹太战争》（Bell. Jud.），第一卷，第二十一章，“在他统治的第十五年，他重建了圣殿。”（πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τῆϛ βασιλείαϛ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν ναὸϛ ἐπεσκεύασε） ↩
  42. 《驳犹太人》（Adv. Jud.），第八章：“在这个[提比略]统治的第十五年，基督受难了，那时他约三十岁…… 这次受难是在七十周的时间内完成的，在提比略·凯撒（Tiberio Caesare）统治下，由格米努斯·鲁贝利乌斯（Rubellio Gemino）和格米努斯·富菲乌斯（Fufio Gemino）担任执政官，在三月，逾越节期间，四月第八天，无酵节的第一天，那天晚上他们宰杀了羔羊，正如摩西所吩咐的那样。”（“Huius [Tiberii] quinto decimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos habens quasi triginta, cum pateretur …. Quae passio huius exterminii intra tempora LXX hebdomadarum perfecta est sub Tiberio Caesare, Consulibus Rubellio Gemino Et Fufio Gemino, mense Martio, temporibus paschae, die VIII Kalendarum Aprilium, die prima azymorum, quo agnum occiderunt ad vesperam, sicuti a Moyse fuerat praeceptum.”） 乳克坦提乌斯（Lactantius）（《论迫害者的死》De Mort. Persec. 2；《论真智慧》De Vera Sap. 10）和奥古斯丁（Augustine）也做了同样的陈述（《上帝之城》De Civit. Dei, I xviii. c. 54：“基督死于两位格米努斯担任执政官时，四月第八天。”“Mortuus est Christus duobus Geminis Consulibus, octavo Kalendas Aprilis.”） 祖姆普特非常看重这个传统，第268页及之后。 ↩
  43. 就像在瑞士，牛群在五月被赶到山上的牧场，在八月或九月被带回家一样。 ↩
  44. 最近支持传统日期的学者是约翰·布朗·麦克莱伦（John Brown McClellan），他试图证明基督出生于公元749年12月25日（公元前5年）。 参见他的《新约》New Test.，第一卷，第390页及之后。 ↩
  45. 《反异端》（Adv. Haer.），第二卷，第二十二章，第4-6节。 ↩
  46. 这有力地表明了教父传统在单纯事实方面的不可靠性。 ↩
  47. 《约翰福音》8:57。 爱任纽推理说，犹太人要么通过观察，要么通过对公共记录的了解，最接近真实的年龄，并因此得出结论：“因此，基督没有只传道一年，也没有在这一年的第十二个月受难； 因为三十岁和五十岁之间的时期，除非在他们的永世[他指的是诺斯替派]中，被认为是如此漫长的年份，否则永远不能被看作是一年。” ↩
  48. 参见《马太福音》4:12；23:37；《马可福音》》1:14；《路加福音》4:14；10:38；13:34。 ↩
  49. 《约翰福音》2:13, 23；6:4；11:55；12:1；13:1。 基督没有参加《约翰福音》6:4中提到的逾越节，因为犹太人想杀他（7:1；可参考5:18）。 ↩
  50. 《约翰福音》5:1，如果我们读冠词“ἡ”在“ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδίων”之前。 参见下文。 ↩
  51. 《以赛亚书》61:2；可参考《路加福音》4:14。 ↩
  52. 《出埃及记》12:5。 ↩
  53. 凯姆（Keim），第一卷，第130页。 ↩
  54. 亨利·布朗（Henry Browne）在他的《时代秩序》（Ordo Saeclorum）（第80页及之后）中，也通过天文计算来捍卫一年事工的观点，但他被迫在没有任何手稿证据的情况下，从《约翰福音》6:4中删除了“τὸ πάσχα”，并使那里提到的“ἑορτή”与7:2中的相同，这样约翰就只给出了一个年份的节日，按照正常的年代顺序，即3月的逾越节2:13，5月的五旬节5:1，9月的住棚节6:4；7:2，12月的修殿节10:22，以及3月的受难逾越节。 ↩
  55. “节期”前的定冠词（ἡ ἑορτή），这得到了《西奈抄本》的支持，并被蒂申多夫（第八版）采纳，支持这个节期是逾越节，即犹太人“伟大”节期的观点。 没有冠词的读法，得到了更批判性的《梵蒂冈抄本》的支持，并受到拉赫曼（Lachmann）、特雷吉尔斯（Tregelles）、韦斯科特和霍特（Westcott and Hort）以及英文修订版的偏爱，支持它是五旬节、普珥节或其他一些次要节期的观点。 （关于语法问题，可参考塞耶（Thayer）的维纳（Winer），第125页，以及莫尔顿（Moulton）的维纳，第155页。） 在所有其他段落中，约翰都给出了节期的名称（τὸ πάσχα，《约翰福音》2:13；6:4；11:55；ἡ σκηνοπηγία 7:2；τὰ ἐγκαίνια 10:22）。 有人反对说，耶稣不太可能参加具有爱国和世俗性质的普珥节，这个节期不是圣殿节，不需要去耶路撒冷，而他却省略了下一个逾越节（《约翰福音》6:4），后者是神圣规定的，更为庄严； 但这个反对意见并不具决定性，因为他也参加了其他次要节日（《约翰福音》7:2；10:22），仅仅是为了行善。 ↩
  56. 《路加福音》13:6-9。本格尔（Bengel）、亨斯滕贝格（Hengstenberg）、维塞勒（Wieseler）、魏策克（Weizäcker）、奥尔福德（Alford）、沃兹沃思（Wordsworth）、安德鲁斯（Andrews）、麦克莱伦（McClellan）。 ↩
  57. 优西比乌（Eusebius）（《教会历史》，I. 10）、狄奥多雷特（Theodoret）（《但以理书注释》，in Dan. ix.）、罗宾逊（Robinson）、安德鲁（Andrew）、麦克莱伦、加德纳（Gardiner）和许多其他人。 另一方面，哲罗姆（Jerome）、维塞勒（Wieseler）和蒂申多夫（Tischendorf）则支持三逾越节理论。 哲罗姆说（在《以赛亚书》第29章，收录在米涅（Migne）编辑的《作品集》，第四卷，第330页）：“在《约翰福音》中记载，主在三个逾越节期间来到耶路撒冷，这构成了两年。”（“Scriptum est in Evangelio secundum Joannem, per tria Pascha Dominum venisse in Jerusalem, quae duos annos efficiunt.”） ↩
  58. W.E.H.莱基（W.E.H. Lecky）：《从奥古斯都到查理曼大帝的欧洲道德史》（History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne）（1869年），第二卷，第9页。 他补充说：“在所有那些玷污教会的罪恶和失败、祭司统治和迫害以及狂热主义中，它在其创始人的品格和榜样中，保留了一种持久的再生原则。” ↩
  59. 《马可福音》15:42；《马太福音》27:62；《路加福音》23:54；《约翰福音》19:14。 星期五被称为“预备日”（παρασκευή），因为安息日所需的饭食是在第六天准备的，因为在安息日不允许生火（《出埃及记》16:5）。 ↩
  60. 《马太福音》26:17, 20；《马可福音》14:12；《路加福音》22:7, 15。 可参考《约翰福音》18:9, 40。 ↩
  61. 《出埃及记》12:6；《利未记》23:5；《民数记》9:3, 5。 如果“两个黄昏之间”这个短语（בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם）可以被理解为在尼散月14日晚上和15日晚上之间，那么宰杀和吃逾越节羔羊将有二十四小时，约翰和对观福音书作者之间的所有困难都会消失。 我们也可以更容易地理解约瑟夫斯所说的被宰杀的270,000只羔羊这个巨大的数字。 但这种解释被排除了，因为同样的表达也被用于关于日常晚祭的规定（《出埃及记》29:39, 41；《民数记》28:4）。 ↩
  62. 《约翰福音》13:1；13:29；18:28；19:14。 ↩
  63. 《约翰福音》13:1“在逾越节之前”并不意味着早一天（如果是这样，会如此表达，可参考12:1），而是指在很短的时间内，并指的是尼散月15日的开始。 《约翰福音》13:29：“买我们过节所需要的东西，” 如果我们记得耶稣在逾越节的常规时间之前与他的门徒坐下（13:1），那么就有时间进行必要的购买，这并没有造成困难。 相反，这段经文有力地反驳了约翰所描述的晚餐发生在逾越节前整整一天的说法； 因为那样的话，就没有必要像使徒们理解基督所说的那样，当他说“你所做的，快去做”时（13:27），如此匆忙地进行购买。 在《约翰福音》18:28中，犹太人没有进入异教徒彼拉多的总督府，“以免被玷污，可以吃逾越节的筵席”，但这是在清晨，大约凌晨3点，当时常规的逾越节筵席还没有在城里结束； 另一些人将“逾越节”这个词在这里理解为一个不寻常的含义，以包括在逾越节周期间的chagigah（חַגִּיגָה）或节期感恩祭，特别是在尼散月15日（可参考《历代志下》30:22）； 无论如何，它不能适用于尼散月15日晚上的逾越节晚餐，因为污秽在日落后就会停止，因此不能成为吃逾越节晚餐的障碍（《利未记》15:1-18；22:1-7）。 《约翰福音》19:14中的“逾越节的预备日”（ἡ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα）不是逾越节前一天（逾越节前夜），而是，正如在19:31和42中明确表示的，逾越节周的预备日，即逾越节的星期五； παρασκευή是星期五的技术术语，作为安息日的预备日，即安息日前一天，προσάββατον，《马可福音》15:42（可参考德语的“Sonnabend”，意为“星期六”，即“安息日之夜”等）。 关于对各段经文更全面的审查，参见我在朗格（Lange）的《马太福音》（第454页及之后）和《约翰福音》（第406、415、562、569页）的版本。 莱特富特（Lightfoot）、维塞勒（Wieseler）、利希滕施泰因（Lichtenstein）、亨斯滕贝格（Hengstenberg）、埃布拉德（Ebrard）（在他1868年《批判》第三版中）、朗格（Lange）、基希纳（Kirchner）、凯尔（Keil）、罗宾逊（Robinson）、安德鲁斯（Andrews）、米利根（Milligan）、普拉姆普特雷（Plumptre）和麦克莱伦（McClellan）都持相同观点； 而吕克（Lücke）、布莱克（Bleek）、德维特（DeWette）、迈耶（Meyer）、埃瓦尔德（Ewald）、施蒂尔（Stier）、贝施拉格（Beyschlag）、格雷斯韦尔（Greswell）、埃利科特（Ellicott）、法勒（Farrar）、曼塞尔（Mansel）和韦斯科特（Westcott）则认为基督是在尼散月14日被钉十字架的，要么假设约翰和对观福音书作者之间存在矛盾（在这种情况下这似乎完全不可能），要么将基督的逾越节晚餐转移到前一天，这与律法和习俗相悖。 约翰自己明确指出尼散月15日是受难日，当他报告彼拉多在受难日“在逾越节”（ἐν τῷ πάσχα）期间释放了一名囚犯（《约翰福音》18:39, 40）。 批判而谨慎的罗宾逊博士说（《和谐》，Harmony，第222页）：“经过反复和冷静的思考，我本人有一个清晰的信念，即约翰的语言或伴随的情况，在公正的解释下，没有要求或允许我们相信这位心爱的门徒打算纠正、或实际上已经纠正或矛盾了马太、马可和路加明确而无可置疑的证词。” 另可参考最近的讨论，莫里斯·基希纳（Mor. Kirchner）：《犹太人的逾越节和耶稣的最后晚餐》（Die jüd. Passahfeier und Jesu letztes Mahl）（哥达，1870年）； 麦克莱伦（McClellen）：《新约》（N. Test.）（1875年），第一卷，第473页及之后，第482页及之后； 凯尔（Keil）：《马太福音》（Evang. des Matt.）（莱比锡，1877年），第513页及之后。 ↩
  64. 罗宾逊博士在《和谐》（Harmony）第222页，和凯尔（Keil）在《马太福音》（Evang. des Matt.）第522页及之后，很好地反驳了这个反对意见。 《米示拿》（Mishna）规定，“在安息日和节日不得举行审判或判决”； 但另一方面，它包含了在安息日举行犹太公会会议和行动的指示和规定，并且处决犯人特意保留在大型节日，以起到更强的警示作用。 在我们的例子中，犹太公会在受难日后的第二天，即安息日和“大日”，向彼拉多申请了看守，并要求封住坟墓（《马太福音》27:62及之后）。 ↩
  65. 参见维塞勒（Wieseler），《年代学概要》（Chronol. Synopse），第446页，以及在赫尔佐格（Herzog）的《百科全书》（Encykl.）第二十一卷，第550页；特别是麦克莱伦（McClellan）精心制作的太阳和月亮运行表，第一卷，第493页，他虔诚地为天文计算的关键测试结果欢欣鼓舞，因为这使得天空在几个世纪后，为福音书的和谐作证。 ↩
  66. 豪斯拉特（Hausrath）在他的第一卷第二版序言（第ix页）中对神话理论说得很好：“在纯粹的历史描述中，没有宗教传奇诗意世界的空间； 它们的形象在历史的明亮背景下会褪色…… 如果我们能证明神圣历史是普遍历史的一个片段，并能展示它的边缘如何吻合，如果我们能重新找到那些将其与世俗世界连接起来的断裂的线索，那么‘这个历史是后世人美丽梦想’的观点就会被排除。” ↩
  67. 巴勒斯坦的平均长度为150英里，约旦河以东到地中海的平均宽度为80到90英里，面积为12,000到13,000平方英里。 马里兰州的面积为11,124平方英里，瑞士为15,992平方英里，苏格兰为30,695平方英里。 ↩
  68. 传统上将试探地点定在耶利哥西北几英里的贫瘠而荒凉的夸兰塔尼亚山（Quarantania），这是晚期的说法。 保罗在归信后，可能也在他三年“在阿拉伯”的休养和准备期间，去了西奈山（《加拉太书》1:17；可参考4:24）。 ↩
  69. W.赫普沃思·迪克森（W. Hepworth Dixon）（《圣地》，The Holy Land, 第十四章）巧妙地为传统的洞穴辩护，并认为圣诞旅店与波阿斯的世袭产业和大卫的家是同一个地方。 ↩
  70. 我们在此补充雷南（Renan）根据个人观察所做的生动描述（《耶稣生平》Vie de Jésus, 第二章，第25页）：“拿撒勒是一个小镇，位于一处山地褶皱中，宽阔地开向北面封闭埃斯德拉隆平原的那组山脉顶峰。 人口现在约三到四[可能五到六]千人，而且可能没有太大变化。 冬天很冷，气候非常健康。 这个小镇，像当时所有犹太村庄一样，是一堆没有风格的住宅，其外观一定和现在黎巴嫩最富饶地区那些石块立方体房子一样贫穷和无趣，尽管它们在葡萄藤和无花果树中仍然非常宜人。 此外，周围环境非常迷人，世界上没有哪个地方比这里更适合梦想绝对的幸福了（nul endroit du monde ne fut si bien fait pour les rêves de l’absolu bonheur）。 即使在今天，拿撒勒也是一个令人愉快的住处，可能是巴勒斯坦唯一一个让灵魂感到轻松的地方，因为这里的荒凉是无与伦比的。 人们友好而善良； 花园清新而翠绿。 公元六世纪末的安东尼乌斯殉道者（Antonius Martyr），对这片地区肥沃的土地做出了迷人的描绘，他将其比作天堂。 西部的一些山谷完全证实了他的描述。 曾经作为小镇生活和欢乐中心的那口喷泉已经被毁了； 它破碎的管道现在只流出浑浊的水。 但那些夜里聚集在那里取水的妇女们的美丽，这种美丽在六世纪就已经被人们注意到了，并被视为圣母马利亚的恩赐，至今仍保存得惊人。 这是叙利亚类型中所有慵懒的优雅。 毫无疑问，马利亚几乎每天都去那里，肩上扛着水罐，与她那些不为人知的同乡们排在同一条线上。 安东尼乌斯殉道者指出，犹太妇女在其他地方对基督徒不屑一顾，但在这里却非常和蔼可亲。 甚至在今天，拿撒勒的宗教仇恨也比其他地方要淡。” 另可参考凯姆（Keim）更详尽的描述，第一卷，第318页及之后，以及托布勒（Tobler）关于拿撒勒的专著，柏林，1868年。 ↩
  71. 约瑟夫斯无疑大大夸大了，当他说加利利至少有二百零四个城镇和村庄（《自传》Vita, c. 45, διακόσιαι καὶ τέσσαρες κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰσὶ πόλεις καὶ κῶμαι），而其中最小的村庄也超过一万五千名居民（《犹太战争》Bell. Jud. III. 3, 2）。 这将使仅该省的人口就超过三百万，而现在整个巴勒斯坦和叙利亚的人口勉强达到二百万，即每平方英里四十人（根据贝德克尔（Bädeker）的《巴勒斯坦和叙利亚》，Pal. and Syria，1876年，第86页）。 ↩
  72. 《马太福音》11:20-24；《路加福音》10:13-15。 ↩
  73. 参见F.德利茨施（F. Delitzsch）：《在迦百农的一天》（Ein Tag in Capernaum），第二版，1873年；富雷尔（Furrer）：《加利利海边的城镇》（Die Ortschaften am See Genezareth），收录在《德国巴勒斯坦协会杂志》（Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins）中，1879年，第52页及之后；我的关于迦百农的文章，ibid. 1878年，第216页及之后，以及《巴勒斯坦探索基金季度报告》（Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund），1879年7月，第131页及之后，以及基奇纳中尉（Lieut. Kitchener）的观察，他同意罗宾逊博士（Dr. Robinson）将迦百农定在米尼亚汗（Khan Minyeh），尽管那里根本没有可以与特勒胡姆（Tell Hum）的废墟相比的遗迹。 ↩
  74. 耶路撒冷目前混杂的人口——穆斯林、犹太人和所有教派的基督徒，尽管主要是希腊人——勉强超过30,000人，而在基督时代，即使我们对约瑟夫斯的数据进行大幅削减，其人口也必须超过100,000人。约瑟夫斯说，在切斯蒂乌斯·加卢斯（Cestius Gallus）担任总督的一次逾越节期间，宰杀了256,500只逾越节羔羊，而在公元70年城被毁时，有1,100,000名犹太人丧生，97,000人被卖为奴隶（包括涌入这座注定被毁灭的城市的600,000名外来者）。《犹太战争》（Bell. Jud.）第六卷，第九章，第三节。 ↩
  75. 《马太福音》28:6。 ↩
  76. 《马太福音》24:2；《马可福音》13:2；《路加福音》19:44。 ↩
  77. 雷南（Renan）总结了他作为1860年和1861年古代腓尼基探索科学委员会主任的个人观察结果，做出了以下令人难忘的忏悔（《耶稣生平》Vie de Jêsus, 引言，第liii页）：“J’ai traversê dans tous les sens la province évangelique; j’ai visitê Jérusalem, Hêbron et la Samarie; presque aucune localité importante de l’histoire de Jésus ne m’a échappé. Toute cette histoire qui, à distance, semble flotter dans les nuages d’un monde sans réalité, prit ainsi un corps, une solidité qui m’étonnèrent. L’accord frappant des textes et des lieux, la merveilleuse harmonie de l’idéal évangélique avec le paysage qui lui servit de cadre furent pour moi comme une révélation. J’eus devant les yeux un cinquième évangile, lacéré, mais lisible encore, et désormais, à travers les récits de Matthieu et de Marc, au lieu d’un être abstrait, qu’on dirait n’avoir jamais existé, je vis une admirable figure humaine vivre, se mouvoir.”（“我走遍了福音书所描述的行省；我访问了耶路撒冷、希伯仑和撒马利亚；几乎没有遗漏耶稣历史中任何重要的地点。整个历史，从远处看似乎漂浮在一个虚无世界的云雾中，就这样获得了身体和坚实感，这让我感到惊讶。文本与地点之间惊人的契合，福音理想与作为其背景的景观之间美妙的和谐，对我来说就像是一个启示。我眼前有了一部第五福音，虽然残缺不全，但仍然可读，从今以后，透过马太和马可的叙述，我不再看到一个抽象的、仿佛从未存在过的存在，而是看到一个令人钦佩的人类形象在生活、在行动。”）他与东方的熟悉解释了为什么这位杰出的作家为福音历史留下了比他的前任施特劳斯更多的历史基础，因为后者从未见过巴勒斯坦。 ↩
  78. 《马太福音》8:5-13；15:21-28；《路加福音》7:1-9。 ↩
  79. 《约翰福音》4:5-42；《路加福音》10:30-37。 ↩
  80. 《约翰福音》12:20-32。 ↩
  81. 《马太福音》10:5, 6；15:14。 ↩
  82. 约瑟夫斯，《犹太战争》（Bell. Jud.），第三卷，第三章，第二节：“这两个如此之大的加利利，被如此多的外邦民族包围，在所有战争场合中都能够进行强有力的抵抗； 因为加利利人从小就习惯了战争，而且总是人数众多； 这个国家也从未缺少过有勇气的人，也从未缺少过为数众多的人： 因为他们的土地普遍肥沃，种植着各种树木，以至于它以其肥沃吸引着最懒惰的人去耕种： 因此，它全部由居民耕种，没有一部分土地是闲置的。 此外，这里的城市非常密集，许多村庄因其土地的富饶而人口稠密，以至于其中最小的村庄也包含了超过一万五千名居民（？）。 ↩
  83. 《约翰福音》1:46；7:52；《马太福音》4:16。 犹太公会在他们盲目的狂热中忘记了约拿来自加利利。 在耶路撒冷沦陷后，提比哩亚成为希伯来学问的总部和《塔木德》的诞生地。 ↩
  84. “拉比”（Rabbi, ῥαββί）来自 rabbī（רַבִּי）或带有后缀 rabbōnī（רַבּוֹנִי），意为“我的主”或“我的夫子”，在新约中出现了十六次； “拉波尼”（Rabbouni, ῥαββουνί）出现了两次； “教师”（διδάσκαλος）在新约中出现了约四十次； “夫子”（ἐπιστάτης）出现了六次； “夫子”（καθηγητής）在《马太福音》23:10中出现了一次（公认文本在10:8也如此，但“διδάσκαλος”是更正确的读法）。 新约中对这些教师的其他称呼有：“文士”（γραμματεῖς）、“律法师”（νομικοί）、“律法教师”（νομοδιδάσκαλοι）。 约瑟夫斯称他们为“诡辩家”（σοφισταί）、“神圣文士”（ἱερογραμματεῖς）、“传统律法的解说者”（πατρίων ἐξηγηταὶ νόμων），《米示拿》（Mishna）称他们为“学者”（חֲכָמִים）。 参见舒勒（Schürer），第441页。 ↩
  85. 《马太福音》23:8；可参考《马可福音》12:38, 39；《路加福音》11:43；20:46。 ↩
  86. 然而，在韦斯帕先（Vespasian）之前，希腊和罗马的教师也是如此，他是第一个引入常规薪水的人。 我在开罗时被告知，那所伟大的穆斯林大学的教授们也免费授课。 ↩
  87. 《传道经》38:24-34：“有学问的人，他的智慧来自闲暇的机会； 事务不多的人将变得有智慧。 拿犁的人怎能得到智慧呢？”等。 ↩
  88. 参见F.德利茨施（F. Delitzsch）：《耶稣时代的犹太手工业者生活》（Jüdisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu.），第三版修订，1879年。 他指出（第77页），在《塔木德》中出现的一百多位拉比都从事过手艺并因此而闻名，如拉比·奥沙亚（R. Oshaja）是鞋匠，拉比·阿巴（R. Abba）是裁缝，拉比·犹大（R. Juda）是面包师，拉比·阿巴·约瑟夫（R. Abba Josef）是建筑师，拉比·哈纳（R. Chana）是银行家，拉比·阿巴·沙乌尔（R. Abba Shaul）是掘墓人，拉比·阿巴·奥沙亚是漂洗工，拉比·阿宾（R. Abin）是木匠，等等。 他评论道（第23页）：“犹太人一直是一个勤劳的民族，在不安分的活动中，他们的冲动、能力和创造力不亚于任何其他民族； 在他们政治独立解体之前，农业和贸易是他们的主要职业； 只有在他们分散和精力收缩之后，他们才成为一个精明商人和小贩的民族，并取代了古老的腓尼基人。” 但精明交易的天赋和倾向是从他们的祖先雅各那里继承的，并且将上帝的殿变成了“商人的贼窝”。 基督指责法利赛人贪婪，这使他们“吞吃寡妇的家产”。 可参考《马太福音》23:14；《马可福音》12:40；《路加福音》16:14；20:47。 ↩
  89. 《马可福音》6:3中，耶稣被他的邻居称为“木匠”（ὁ τέκτων），《马太福音》13:55中为“木匠的儿子”。 ↩
  90. 《路加福音》8:3；《马太福音》27:55；《马可福音》15:41；《约翰福音》13:29。 在那些服事耶稣的虔诚妇女中，还有希律王的管家苦撒的妻子约亚拿。 从她身上，可以追溯到关于希律宴会上的跳舞场景和施洗约翰被处决的生动而详细的描述，《马可福音》6:14-29。 ↩
  91. 《使徒行传》18:3；20:33-35；《帖撒罗尼迦前书》2:9；《帖撒罗尼迦后书》3:8；《哥林多后书》11:7-9。 ↩
  92. 《约翰福音》18:20。 可参考《马太福音》4:23；9:35；21:23；26:55；《马可福音》1:21, 39；14:49；《路加福音》2:46；4:14-16, 31, 44；13:10；21:37。 ↩
  93. 《使徒行传》13:14-16；16:13；17:2, 3。 ↩
  94. 《路加福音》2:46；5:17；《马太福音》5:1；26:55；《约翰福音》8:2；《使徒行传》22:3（“在迦玛列脚下”）。 ↩
  95. 约瑟夫斯经常谈到这一点。 《驳亚比安》（C. Ap.）第一卷，第12节：“我们比所有人都更关心我们年轻人的教育（παιδοτροφία），我们认为遵守律法（τὸ φυλάττειν τοὺς νόμους）和相应的虔诚（τὴν κατὰ τούτους παραδεδομένην εὐσέβειαν）是生命中最必要的工作。” 可参考第二卷，第18节；《古史》（Ant.）第四卷，第八章，第12节。 斐洛（Philo）的证词也有同样的效果，《致盖乌斯书》（Legat. ad Cajum.）第16节，第31段，由舒勒（Schürer）引用，第467页。 ↩
  96. 《提摩太后书》1:5；3:15；可参考《以弗所书》6:4。 ↩
  97. 《自传》（Vita），第2节。 ↩
  98. 舒勒（Schürer），第468页；以及金斯伯格（Ginsburg），《教育》一文，收录在基托（Kitto）的《圣经文学百科全书》（Cyc. of Bibl. Liter.），第三版。 ↩
  99. 《使徒行传》6:9，用于自由人和来自不同国家说着希腊语的犹太人和归信者。 拉比作家估计耶路撒冷的会堂数量高达480个（即4 x 10 x 12），这似乎令人难以置信。 ↩
  100. 《路加福音》4:16-22。 ↩
  101. 《使徒行传》2:8-12。 ↩
  102. 可参考约西亚王逾越节的描述，《历代志下》35:1-19。 ↩
  103. 拉比的经院主义让人想起歌德在《浮士德》中对逻辑的精彩描述：“Wer will was Lebendig’s erkennen und beschreiben, / Sucht erst den Geist hinauszutreiben; / Dann hat er die Theile in seiner Hand, / Fehlt leider! nur das geistige Band.”（“谁想认识和描述有生命的东西，/ 先将灵魂赶出它的身体；/ 这样他手里就有了各个部分，/ 唉！不幸的是，却失去了那精神的联系。”） ↩
  104. 《马太福音》15:2, 3, 6；《马可福音》7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13。 值得注意的是，基督总是用“传统”（παράδοσις）这个词的贬义，指那些模糊并实际上取代了神圣圣经的人类教义和习俗。 改革者们也用同样的指责来攻击他们那个时代的僧侣和经院学者的教义。 ↩
  105. 《马太福音》16:21-23；《马可福音》8:31-33；《路加福音》9:22, 44, 45；18:34；24:21；《约翰福音》12:34。 ↩
  106. 关于旧作，可参考肖特根（Schöttgen），《希伯来与塔木德时光》（Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae），第二卷（论弥赛亚，De Messia）；关于现代作品，可参考舒勒（Schürer），l.c. 第563-599页，以及其中引用的文献；还有詹姆斯·德鲁蒙德（James Drummond），《犹太人的弥赛亚》（The Jewish Messiah,），伦敦，1877年。 ↩
  107. 《马太福音》18:1-6；可参考《马可福音》10:13-16；《路加福音》18:15-17。 ↩
  108. 《马太福音》11:25-30。 这段经文只出现在《马太福音》和（部分）《路加福音》10:21, 22中，它与《约翰福音》中的任何一段都同样重要。 当席勒（Schiller）吟唱：“Was kein Verstand der Verständigen sieht, / Das übet in Einfalt ein kindlich Gemüth.”（“聪明人所不能理解的，/ 孩童般的心灵却能单纯地实践。”）时，这正是对这段话的真切回响。 ↩
  109. 《约翰福音》1:32-34；可参考3:34。 ↩
  110. 《马太福音》26:64；《约翰福音》18:37；《路加福音》23:43。 ↩
  111. 《路加福音》9:58；19:10；《马太福音》18:11；20:17, 28；《马可福音》2:10, 28；《约翰福音》1:51；6:53，以及许多其他段落。 “人子”（ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου）这个术语在福音书中出现了约80次。 关于其含义，可参考我的《基督位格论》（Person of Christ），第83页及之后（1880年版）。 ↩
  112. 《马太福音》16:20-23；《马可福音》8:30-33；《路加福音》9:21-27。 ↩
  113. 《使徒行传》2:24, 32；《罗马书》6:4；10:9；《哥林多前书》15:15；《以弗所书》1:20；《彼得前书》1:21。 ↩
  114. 《约翰福音》2:19；10:17, 18。 同样，主的第一次降临被表示为祂自己的自愿行为，也是来自天父的使命，《约翰福音》8:42：“我本是出于上帝，也是从上帝而来，并不是由着自己来，而是祂差了我来。”（ἐγὼ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἥκω· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνόϛ με ἀπέστειλεν） ↩
  115. 《罗马书》6:9, 10。 尼安德（Neander）（《耶稣生平》Leben Jesu, 第六版德语版，第596和597页）对复活和升天之间这种不可分割的联系提出了一些出色的评论，并说，即使路加没有提及升天，它作为一个超自然事实也是站得住脚的。 暂时的复活，随后又以另一次死亡告终，永远不可能成为一个教会的基础。 ↩
  116. 《哥林多前书》15:13-19；可参考《罗马书》4:25，保罗在那里将基督的死和复活以不可分割的联系呈现，作为整个福音的总和和实质。 ↩
  117. 埃瓦尔德（Ewald）提出了一个引人注目的评论（第六卷，第90页），复活是“所有从历史开始到结束可以想象到的奇迹事件的顶点。” ↩
  118. 《马太福音》16:21-23；17:9, 22, 23；20:17-20；《马可福音》8:31；9:9, 10, 31, 32（“他们不明白这话，又怕问他”）；《路加福音》9:22, 44, 45；18:31-34；24:6-8；《约翰福音》2:21, 22；3:14；8:28；10:17, 18；12:32。 ↩
  119. 虔诚的妇女在第一个基督徒安息日去坟墓，不是为了看它空着，而是用香料膏抹身体以供其长眠（《马可福音》16:1；《路加福音》23:56）；当她们告诉十一位使徒她们所看到的时，他们认为她们的话“如同胡言乱语”，并且“不相信她们”（《路加福音》24:11）。 可参考《马太福音》28:17（“还有人疑惑”）；《马可福音》16:8（“他们害怕”）；《约翰福音》20:25。 ↩
  120. 鲍尔博士（Dr. Baur）精辟地概括了这种对比：“在[耶稣]的死亡和复活之间，存在着一个如此深不可测的黑暗，以至于人们仿佛在一个新的历史舞台上，看到了被如此暴力撕裂又被如此奇妙恢复的联系。”（Zwischen dem Tod [Jesu] und seiner Auferstehung liegt ein so tiefes undurchdringliches Dunkel, dass man nach so gewaltsam zerrissenem und so wundervoll wiederhergestelltem Zusammenhange sich gleichsam auf einem neuen Schauplatz der Geschichte sieht.） 参见本节末尾他的评论。 埃瓦尔德博士以他一贯的力量更全面地描述了门徒的沮丧和突然的振奋（第六卷，第54页及之后）。 我还将引用雷南（Renan）的描述，在他的著作《使徒》（Les Apôtres）第一章开头：“耶稣，尽管他总是谈论复活和新生命，但从未非常清楚地说明他将以肉身复活。 门徒们（在祂死后的最初几个小时里）对此没有任何确定的希望。 他们对我们坦率的坦白表明，他们认为一切都结束了。 他们哭泣并安葬他们的朋友，如果说不是像一个庸俗的死者，至少也是像一个无法弥补的损失的人（《马可福音》16:10；《路加福音》24:17, 21）； 他们悲伤沮丧； 他们曾希望他将实现以色列的救赎，但这个希望被证明是虚假的； 人们会认为他们失去了一个伟大而珍贵的幻想。 但热情和爱不知道没有出路的境地。 他们嘲弄不可能，与其放弃希望，不如对所有现实施加暴力。” ↩
  121. 《马太福音》28:18-20；《马可福音》16:15, 16；《路加福音》24:46-48；《约翰福音》20:21-23；《使徒行传》1:8。 ↩
  122. 迈耶（Meyer）说，他是最公正和最细致的解经家之一（《约翰福音注释》，第五版德语版，第643页）。 我将补充法勒（Canon Farrar）的观察（《基督生平》，第二卷，第432页）：“叙述中的漏洞、压缩、变体、实际差异，以及叙述者受属灵启示影响的主观性，使得所有和谐充其量都是不确定的。 我们对复活作为历史事实的信仰，它被后续和同期情况所证实，就像历史上任何其他事件一样，其基础比任何可能因分歧而动摇的基础都更深、更广、更属灵、更永恒，我们只能说这些分歧不一定是矛盾，但其真正的解决方案已不可得。 因此，自塞尔苏斯时代以来一直被反复提及的‘十个分歧’，从未动摇过基督教信仰一小时。 叙述所呈现的现象，正如我们所预期的那样，它们来自不同的见证人，最初只以口头传统保存，并写于1800年前，当时人们对‘细致入微的准确性’，与完美的真实性不同，并不太重视。 圣保罗，当然不是一个无能或轻信的狂热者，他为显现的真实性作证，也为他自己的异象是在一个很长的时间后，像一个‘早产的’使徒家族成员一样来到他身上作证（《哥林多前书》15:4-8）。 如果基督向他的门徒显现的叙述是‘虚构’的，它们怎么会拥有那种没有任何宗教狂热痕迹的严肃而简单的特质呢？ 如果那些显现纯粹是‘主观的’，我们如何解释它们突然、迅速、完全的终止？ 正如朗格（Lange）精辟地指出的，第一个复活节消息的伟大赋格曲并没有以‘单调的赞美诗’来到我们这里，而仅仅是幼稚的文字批判无法理解那些激励着这些充满热情和众多声音的个体振动的共同情感和和谐（第五卷，第61页）。 韦斯科特（Professor Westcott）以他一贯的深刻和洞察力，指出了四位福音书作者在叙述目的上的差异。 圣马太主要强调复活的威严和荣耀； 圣马可，无论是原始部分还是附加部分（《马可福音》16:9-20），都坚持它是一个事实； 圣路加，将其视为一种‘属灵的必然’； 圣约翰，将其视为‘品格的试金石’（Introd. 310-315）。 ↩
  123. 这个理论是由那些钉死主并知道这是谎言的犹太祭司们发明的，《马太福音》27:62-66；28:12-15。 这个谎言被轻信的无神论者一次又一次地重复和相信，就像许多其他谎言一样，首先是马西昂时代的恶毒犹太人，然后是塞尔苏斯，他从他们那里得知，但在谎言和异象理论之间摇摆不定，并在十八世纪由赖马鲁斯（Reimarus）在他的《沃尔芬比特尔片段》中重新提出。 萨尔瓦多（Salvador），一位法国犹太学者，再次复活并修改了它，假设（根据哈斯《耶稣历史》第132页）耶稣被公正地钉十字架，并由彼拉多的妻子通过亚利马太的约瑟或一些加利利妇女救了命； 他在爱色尼人中隐退，并秘密地向他的一些门徒显现。 （参见他的《耶稣基督及其教义》，Jésus Christ et sa doctrine, 巴黎，1838年。） 施特劳斯（Strauss）以前捍卫异象假设（参见下文），但在他生命的最后，当他用唯物主义和无神论取代他的唯心主义和泛神论时，他似乎又回到了这个可耻的欺诈理论； 因为在他的《新旧信仰》（Old and New Faith，1873年）中，他毫不羞愧地称基督的复活为“一个世界历史性的‘骗局’”。 真理或谎言：没有中间地带。 ↩
  124. 这种“昏厥假设”（Scheintod-Hypothese，德语称呼）得到了海德堡的保卢斯（Paulus）（1800年）的有力倡导，并由格弗勒尔（Gfrörer）（1838年）进行了修改，后者后来成为一名罗马天主教徒。 我们痛心地加上哈斯博士（Dr. Hase）的名字（《耶稣历史》Gesch. Jesu, 1876年，第601页），他认为有必要借助“特别的天意”，以保持与他之前对复活奇迹的辩护的一致性，他曾真实地说（《耶稣生平》，Leben Jesu, 第五版，1865年，第269页）：“因此，复活的真理坚定地建立在使徒教会的见证，甚至存在之上。”（“Sonach ruht die Wahrheit der Auferstehung unerschütterlich auf dem Zeugnisse, ja auf dem Dasein der apostolischen Kirche.”） ↩
  125. 施特劳斯博士（在他的第二部《耶稣生平》中，1864年，第298页）以这种引人注目且具有决定性的方式驳斥了昏厥理论：“一个半死不活地从坟墓里爬出来、病弱地四处徘徊、需要医疗护理、包扎、营养和保护，最终仍屈服于痛苦的人，不可能给门徒留下战胜死亡和坟墓、成为生命之主的印象，而这正是他们后来行动的基础。 这种死而复生只会削弱他在生与死中对他们所留下的印象，最多只会以一种悲伤的方式结束，而绝不可能将他们的悲伤转变为热情，将他们的崇敬提升为崇拜。”（“Ein halbtodt aus dem Grabe Hervorgekrochener, siech Umherschleichender, der ärztlichen Pflege, des Verbandes, der Stärkung und Schonung Bedürftiger, und am Ende doch dem Leiden Erliegender konnte auf die Jünger unmöglich den Eindruck des Sieqers über Tod und Grab, des Lebensfürsten machen, der ihrem spätern Auftreten zu Grunde lag. Ein solches Wiederaufleben hätte den Eindruck, den er im Leben und Tode auf sie gemacht hatte, nur schwächen, denselben höchstens elegisch ausklingen lassen, unmöglich aber ihre Trauer in Beigeisterung verwandeln, ihre Verehrung zur Anbetung steigern können.”） 哈斯博士（第603页）不公正地称这种对施特劳斯自己观点的揭露为“施特劳斯式的倾向描绘”。 凯姆博士（Dr. Keim）对昏厥理论的驳斥更为有效（《拿撒勒人耶稣生平》Leben Jesu v. Naz. III. 576）： “而最不可能的是：那个可怜、虚弱、病态、勉强站立、躲藏、乔装、最终死去的耶稣，怎么会成为他追随者们信仰、高尚情感和胜利的对象，一个复活的胜利者和上帝之子！ 事实上，这种理论在这里开始变得可悲、荒谬，甚至令人厌恶，因为它将使徒描绘成可怜的受骗者，或者甚至将他们和耶稣本人描绘成骗子。 因为即使在那个时代，人们对昏厥也有概念，耶稣的情况必须表明，这里根本没有复活一说； 如果他们确实认为他复活了，他也自称复活了，那么他们就缺乏清醒的思考，如果他小心翼翼地隐瞒自己的状况，那么他最终也缺乏诚实。 出于所有这些原因，昏厥理论几乎被现代人一致抛弃了。” ↩
  126. 异象假设（Visions-Hypothese）最初是由异教徒塞尔苏斯（Celsus）提出的（参见凯姆，第三卷，第577页），并以一种更尊重的形式由犹太哲学家斯宾诺莎（Spinoza）提出，然后由施特劳斯和雷南（Renan）详尽地阐述，其特点是，施特劳斯将复活的梦想追溯到加利利的使徒们，而雷南（在塞尔苏斯之后）则追溯到耶路撒冷的抹大拉的马利亚，他近乎亵渎地在他的《耶稣生平》中说，“一个产生幻觉的女人的热情给了世界一个复活的神！” 在他关于《使徒》（Apostles,）的著作中，雷南更全面地探讨了这个问题，并再次以法国小说家特有的风格强调了抹大拉的角色。 “复活的荣耀，”他说（第13页），“属于抹大拉的马利亚。 在耶稣之后，马利亚为基督教的建立做得最多。 抹大拉那细腻的感官所创造的影子仍然笼罩着世界…… 她作为女性的伟大断言：‘他复活了！’ 已经成为人类信仰的基础。” 异象理论也得到了策勒尔（Zeller）、霍尔斯滕（Holsten）（在他1868年关于《保罗和彼得福音》的有力论述中）、朗（Lang）、沃尔克马尔（Volkmar）、雷维勒（Réville）、斯科尔滕（Scholten）、迈伊布姆（Meijboom）、库宁（Kuenen）、霍伊卡斯（Hooykaas）的采纳和捍卫。 可参考凯姆（Keim），第三卷，第579页及之后。 在英国作家中，《超自然宗教》（Supernatural Religion）的匿名作者是其主要捍卫者，他用这些话来陈述它（第三卷，第526页，1879年伦敦版）：“我们提供的解释，并且长期以来被有能力的批评家以各种形式采纳的解释[他在脚注中错误地引用了埃瓦尔德]，是，毫无疑问耶稣被看到了（ὤφθη），但这个异象不是真实的和客观的，而是虚幻的和主观的； 也就是说，看到的不是耶稣本人，而只是一个在观看者心中产生的耶稣的表象。” 另一方面，埃瓦尔德、申克尔、亚历山大·施韦策（Alex. Schweizer）和凯姆（Keim）通过赋予复活异象一个“客观的”特征，并将其描述为来自天堂的、真实的但纯粹属灵的荣耀基督的显现，从根本上修改了这个理论。 哈斯恰当地称这种观点为“异象假设的天堂化”（Verhimmelung der Visionshypothese）（《耶稣历史》，第597页）。 这当然是一个巨大的进步，也是向真理迈进了一半，但它在空坟墓这个岩石上破碎了。 它没有，也不能告诉我们基督的身体发生了什么。 ↩
  127. 《超自然宗教》的作者（第三卷，第530页）甚至援引了路德在瓦特堡看到魔鬼的异象，特别是拜伦勋爵死后在清澈月光下向沃尔特·斯科特爵士显现的幻影； 他幻想在一世纪，这会被误认为是现实。 ↩
  128. 埃瓦尔德和雷南将这些基督的异象扩展到几个月甚至几年，这是完全没有根据的。 “这些伟大的忧郁梦境，”雷南说（《使徒》，Les Apôtres, 34, 36），“这些与已故心爱之人永不停止、不断重复的交谈填满了日子和月份…… 大约一年时间在这种介于天堂和地狱之间的悬浮生活中过去了。 魅力非但没有减弱，反而增加了。” 甚至凯姆（Keim），第三卷，第598页，也反对这种观点。 ↩
Essay
#Church History
《基督教会史》第二章：耶稣基督
http://avcaleb.github.io/2025/08/29/《基督教会史》菲利普·沙弗，第二章/
作者
A. V. Caleb
发布于
2025年8月29日
许可协议