Strauss.

What he thinks gave rise to the Gospels.

two men may differ as between themselves, in their attitude towards historical Christianity they agree. Strauss regards the Messianic idea in the mind of the Hebrew race as the germ of the Gospels. The view of Baur, though mythical like this, is that the writings Differs from of the New Testament must be traced to a less poetical source, namely, the conflict which had arisen between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. His statement of this theory, as well as his defence of it, is very ingenious. There were two parties in the early church,—a Petrine and a Pauline party. The latter were desirous that the Jewish faith should merge itself into a world-religion, the former wished it to be kept strictly within the old national limits. In the dispersed condition of the Jews, living in Roman and Greek communities, everything naturally favored the Gentile party. It grew steadily, especially by the incoming of Gentile converts, while its rival faction as steadily lost ground. As time passed on, and the once clear authority of the Mosaic laws had grown dim, even in the minds of the Petrine or conservative party, certain of the progressive or Pauline party stepped forward, and supplemented the Old Testament records by inventing the writings which compose the New Testament. They showed that the prophecies of the Old Testament pointed forward to something, and that something they supplied in the Gospels and Epistles. These writings were so shaped as to suit the ancient tradition, as to represent a long and varying struggle between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, and as

Traces of a conflict all through them.

in the end to give the latter the ascendency over the

1

How Baur makes the narrative

favor the Pauline

former. Christ is portrayed as less and less Jewish, and more and more favorable to the Gentiles, as the feigned narrative goes forward. This is shown in his denunciations of the Pharisees, while he befriends outcasts; also in his formal discourses, party. and especially in his parables. The lost sheep, the pieces of silver, the prodigal son, awakening so much concern in each instance, are the Gentile world. The unjust steward, whom his lord puts out of the stewardship, is Israel. The fact of descent from Abraham is to be disregarded; Christ proclaims a religion which is equally open to all men. Those on the right hand of the Judge in the last day are good Gentiles; true subjects of the new kingdom, though kept in ignorance of their relation to Christ by the Petrine teachings. Those on the left hand are bad Jews, rejected for lack of such obedience as the others have shown. Peter is more a name than a person, representing the narrow view. He has precedence in the apostolic college, as the Jews had in the matter of revela tion. But he does many weak things, such as denying his Master, waiting for a vision before he will visit Cornelius, and refusing to eat with the Gentiles after his doing so had offended some at Jerusalem. Gradually he is made to acquire broader views, yet he cannot quite put away his exclusive feelings; and finally, after some collisions with the party of progress, in which he is uniformly put to the worse, he sinks out of the so-called history altogether. Meanwhile the liberal tendency, for the sake of which the New Testament writings were drawn up, is described as making rapid headway, and as absorbing the whole energy and

Peter dis

appears.

piety of the church. Not only does it show to advantage throughout the Evangelical mythus, but especially in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul, the representative

The Pauiine party triumphs.

man of this movement, is the great missionary, entirely eclipsing Peter, withstanding him to the face because he was to be blamed, and forcing him at last to yield his pretensions. Various treatises are added, which, to increase their influence, are called the Epistles of Paul, or of those who in the main accepted his views. Even Peter is made to indorse the Pauline party, in his Epistles, so called. Baur concedes that some of the treatises ascribed to Paul were written by him; but the Gentile spirit predominates in these no more than in those whose authorship is uncertain. The object of them all is, to impress it upon the minds of the early Christians, that either the liberal party in the church must triumph, or the whole Evangelical idea, as well as the Messianic idea back of it, must be given up. Baur thinks that many a Judaizing Christian, in the second century and near the beginning of the third, falling in with the New Testament writings and reading them thoughtfully, must The reason have been persuaded to give up his Judaism, and accept the newer doctrine of a world-reli

ing of Baur not admissible.

gion. To beget such a persuasion was the purpose of the authentic treatises, and of the feigned letters and narratives. This purpose emboldened the writers, whoever they were, to do what is sometimes done by the correspondents of newspapers. They imagined the stories they wrote out; and these, for lack of a rigid criticism, such as Baur and his school now apply to them, gained general currency among the credulous friends of

the broad-church party. Histories were invented, for which those who knew Jesus personally are made to vouch, and essays were composed, at the head of which stood apostolic names; and so childish was the age, and ready to be duped, that this deception passed without successful challenge. It was not till nearly two thousand years after, that the Daniel of biblical criticism, in the form of the Tübingen school, came to judgment.

A special refutation not needed

here.

It will be seen, therefore, that the position of Baur, with reference to the historical validity of the New Testament, is substantially that of Strauss. Hence the facts which refute one are a sufficient answer to the other. Having already indicated what those facts are, I need not repeat them here. Those who wish to examine the whole question of the historical validity of the New Testament, need hardly to be referred to the many volumes of recent critics, in which this matter is ably discussed. One of the best of these, for general use, is Professor Fisher's work on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity. This work makes it clear, by a full and scientific treatment of the subject, that the ground of Baur is untenable.

There were

parties in

the early

To the special view of Baur respecting parties in the apostolic church, there is no objection. Such parties undoubtedly did exist. They are plainly described to us in the New Testament history. It is Baur's fault, that instead of finding them in the history, he makes them create the so-called history. He finds the evangelical record in his idea, rather than the grounds of his idea in the record. In doing this, he shows the peculiar vice of German thinkers. When

church.

they have found a theory, they are inclined to make that theory the source of whatever else they find.. With Baur the idea of two parties originates the New Testament writings, as the Messianic idea does with Strauss. And in this producing power of the idea they both follow Hegel, who finds in his absolute idea the creative substance of all things. We find, in the history of the United States soon after the adoption of the Constitution, two political parties, the federal, led by John Adams, and the republican, led by Thomas Jefferson. But what would be thought of the critic who, discovering this conflict, should declare that it, for the partisan purposes of one side or the other, has created all our so-called national history; that the record is simply an imaginary dress, in which some partial champion has em- . bodied his view of the conflict; that the struggle did not begin till some time after the date assigned; that it is very doubtful whether Adams and Jefferson are not, after all, only the myths which some politician has imagined; while it is certain that they never penned many of the writings which now claim their authorship? Yet this is not an unfair illustration of the spirit of the Tübingen criticism. Not satisfied with running its theory into the ground, it runs the ground into its theory.

Baur's treatment unfair.

The ancients had their muse of history, whose aid they reverently invoked, while attempting to set past events in order. Did they not, in this, recognize a universal human infirmity? Even our secular historians carry back their private views, to the serious discoloring of that which they would describe. It was left for Strauss and Baur to enthrone this infirmity, and make it the originator of the