Part 6 (2/2)

XI

RENAN'S ”VIE DE JeSUS”[13]

[13]

_Histoire des Origines du Christianisme_. Livre I.--_Vie de Jesus_.

Par Ernest Renan. _Guardian_, 9th September 1863.

Unbelief is called upon nowadays, as well as belief, to give its account of the origin of that undeniable and most important fact which we call the Christian religion. And if it is true that in some respects the circ.u.mstances under which the controversy is carried on are, as it has been alleged, more than heretofore favourable to unbelief, it is also true that in some other respects the case of unbelief has difficulties which it had not once. It has to accept and admit, if it wishes to gain a favourable hearing from the present generation, the unique and surpa.s.sing moral grandeur, depth, and attractiveness of Christianity. The polemic method which set Christianity in broad contrast with what was supposed to be best and highest in human nature, and therefore found no difficulty in tracing to a bad source what was itself represented to be bad, is not a method suited to the ideas and feelings of our time; and the sneers and sarcasms of the last century, provoked by abuses and inconsistencies which have since received their ample and memorable punishment, cease to produce any effect on readers of the present day, except to call forth a pa.s.sing feeling of repugnance at what is shallow and profane, mixed, it may be, sometimes, with an equally pa.s.sing admiration for what is witty and brilliant.

Even in M. Renan's view, Voltaire has done his work, and is out of date. Those who now attack Christianity have to attack it under the disadvantage of the preliminary admission that its essential and distinguis.h.i.+ng elements are, on the whole, in harmony and not in discordance with the best conceptions of human duty and life, and that its course and progress have been, at any rate, concurrent with all that is best and most hopeful in human history. First allowing that as a fact it contains in it things than which we cannot imagine anything better, and without which we should never have reached to where we are, they then have to dispute its divine claims. No man could write persuasively on religion now, _against_ it any more than _for_ it, who did not show that he was fully penetrated not only with its august and beneficent aspect, but with the essential and everlasting truths which, in however imperfect shapes, or whencesoever derived, are embodied in it and are ministered by it to society.

That Christianity is, as a matter of fact, a successful and a living religion, in a degree absolutely without parallel in any other religion, is the point from which its a.s.sailants have now to start.

They have also to take account of the circ.u.mstance, to the recognition of which the whole course of modern thought and inquiry has brought us, that it has been successful, not by virtue merely of any outward and accidental favouring circ.u.mstances, but of its intrinsic power and of principles which are inseparable from its substance. This being the condition of the question, those who deny its claim to a direct Divine origin have to frame their theory of it so as to account, on principles supposed to be common to it and other religions, not merely for its rise and its conquests, but for those broad and startling differences which separate it, in character and in effects, from all other known religions. They have to show how that which is instinct with never-dying truth sprang out of what was false and mistaken, if not corrupt; how that which alone has revealed G.o.d to man's conscience had no other origin than what in other instances has led men through enthusiasm and imposture to a barren or a mischievous superst.i.tion.

Such an attempt is the work before us--a work destined, probably, both from its ability and power and from its faults, to be for modern France what the work of Strauss was for Germany, the standard expression of an unbelief which shrinks with genuine distaste from the coa.r.s.e and negative irreligion of older infidelity, and which is too refined, too profound and sympathetic in its views of human nature, to be insensible to those numberless points in which as a fact Christianity has given expression to the best and highest thoughts that man can have. Strauss, to account for what we see, imagined an idea, or a set of ideas, gradually worked out into the shape of a history, of which scarcely anything can be taken as real matter of fact, except the bare existence of the person who was clothed in the process of time with the attributes created by the idealising legend. Such a view is too vague and indistinct to satisfy French minds. A theory of this sort, to find general acceptance in France, must start with concrete history, and not be history held in solution in the cloudy shapes of myths which vanish as soon as touched. M. Renan's process is in the main the reverse of Strauss's. He undertakes to extract the real history recorded in the Gospels; and not only so, but to make it even more palpable and interesting, if not more wonderful, than it seems at first sight in the original records, by removing the crust of mistake and exaggeration which has concealed the true character of what the narrative records; by rewriting it according to those canons of what is probable and intelligible in human life and capacity which are recognised in the public whom he addresses.

Two of these canons govern the construction of the book. One of them is the a.s.sumption that in no part of the history of man is the supernatural to be admitted. This, of course, is not peculiar to M.

Renan, though he lays it down with such emphasis in all his works, and is so anxious to bring it into distinct notice on every occasion, that it is manifestly one which he is desirous to impress on all who read him, as one of the ultimate and unquestionable foundations of all historical inquiry. The other canon is one of moral likelihood, and it is, that it is credible and agreeable to what we gather from experience, that the highest moral elevation ever attained by man should have admitted along with it, and for its ends, conscious imposture. On the first of these a.s.sumptions, all that is miraculous in the Gospel narratives is, not argued about, or, except perhaps in one instance--the raising of Lazarus--attempted to be accounted for or explained, but simply left out and ignored. On the second, the fact from which there is no escape--that He whom M. Renan venerates with a sincerity which no one can doubt as the purest and greatest of moral reformers, did claim power from G.o.d to work miracles--is harmonised with the a.s.sumption that the claim could not possibly have been a true one.

M. Renan professes to give an historical account of the way in which the deepest, purest, most enduring religious principles known among men were, not merely found out and announced, but propagated and impressed upon the foremost and most improved portions of mankind, by the power of a single character. It is impossible, without speaking of Jesus of Nazareth as Christians are used to do, to speak of His character and of the results of His appearance in loftier terms than this professed unbeliever in His Divine claims. But when the account is drawn out in detail, of a cause alleged to be sufficient to produce such effects, the apparent inadequacy of it is most startling. When we think of what Christianity is and has done, and that, in M. Renan's view, Christ, the Christ whom he imagines and describes, is all in all to Christianity, and then look to what he conceives to have been the original spring and creative impulse of its achievements, the first feeling is that no s.h.i.+fts that belief has sometimes been driven to, to keep within the range of the probable, are greater than those accepted by unbelief, in its most enlightened and reflecting representations. To suppose such an one as M. Renan paints, changing the whole course of history, overturning and converting the world, and founding the religion which M. Renan thinks the lasting religion of mankind, involves a force upon our imagination and reason to which it is not easy to find a parallel.

His view is that a Galilean peasant, in advance of his neighbours and countrymen only in the purity, force, and singleness of purpose with which he realised the highest moral truths of Jewish religious wisdom, first charming a few simple provincials by the freshness and native beauty of his lessons, was then led on, partly by holy zeal against falsehood and wickedness, partly by enthusiastic delusions as to his own mission and office, to attack the inst.i.tutions of Judaism, and perished in the conflict--and that this was the cause why Christianity and Christendom came to be and exist. This is the explanation which a great critical historian, fully acquainted with the history of other religions, presents, as a satisfactory one, of a phenomenon so astonis.h.i.+ng and unique as that of a religion which has suited itself with undiminished vitality to the changes, moral, social, and political, which have marked the eighteen centuries of European history. There have been other enthusiasts for goodness and truth, more or less like the character which M. Renan draws in his book, but they have never yet founded a universal religion, or one which had the privilege of perpetual youth and unceasing self-renovation. There have been other great and imposing religions, commanding the allegiance for century after century of millions of men; but who will dare a.s.sert that any of these religions, that of Sakya-Mouni, of Mahomet, or that of the Vedas, could possibly be the religion, or satisfy the religious ideas and needs, of the civilised West?

When M. Renan comes to detail he is as strangely insensible to what seem at first sight the simplest demands of probability. As it were by a sort of reaction to the minute realising of particulars which has been in vogue among some Roman Catholic writers, M. Renan realises too--realises with no less force and vividness, and, according to his point of view, with no less affectionate and tender interest. He popularises the Gospels; but not for a religious set of readers--nor, we must add, for readers of thought and sense, whether interested for or against Christianity, but for a public who study life in the subtle and highly wrought novels of modern times. He appeals from what is probable to those representations of human nature which aspire to pa.s.s beyond the conventional and commonplace, and especially he dwells on neglected and unnoticed examples of what is sweet and soft and winning. But it is hard to recognise the picture he has drawn in the materials out of which he has composed it. The world is tolerably familiar with them. If there is a characteristic, consciously or unconsciously acknowledged in the Gospel records, it is that of the gravity, the plain downright seriousness, the laborious earnestness, impressed from first to last on the story. When we turn from these to his pages it is difficult to exaggerate the astounding impression which his epithets and descriptions have on the mind. We are told that there is a broad distinction between the early Galilean days of hope in our Lord's ministry, and the later days of disappointment and conflict; and that if we look, we shall find in Galilee the ”_fin et joyeux moraliste_,” full of a ”_conversation pleine de gaiete et de charme_,” of ”_douce gaiete et aimables plaisanteries_,” with a ”_predication suave et douce, toute pleine de la nature et du parfum des champs_,” creating out of his originality of mind his ”_innocents aphorismes_,” and the ”_genre d'elicieux_” of parabolic teaching; ”_le charmant docteur qui pardonnait a tous pourvu qu'on l'aimat_.” He lived in what was then an earthly paradise, in ”_la joyeuse Galilee_” in the midst of the ”_nature ravissante_” which gave to everything about the Sea of Galilee ”_un tour idyllique et charmant_.” So the history of Christianity at its birth is a ”_delicieuse pastorale_” an ”_idylle_,” a ”_milieu enivrant_” of joy and hope. The master was surrounded by a ”_bande de joyeux enfants_,” a ”_troupe gaie et vagabonde_,” whose existence in the open air was a ”perpetual enchantment.” The disciples were ”_ces pet.i.ts comites de bonnes gens_,” very simple, very credulous, and like their country full of a ”_sentiment gai et tendre de la vie_,” and of an ”_imagination riante_.” Everything is spoken of as ”delicious”--”_delicieuse pastorale,” ”delicieuse beaute,” ”delicieuses sentences,” ”delicieuse theologie d'amour_.” Among the ”tender and delicate souls of the North”--it is not quite thus that Josephus describes the Galileans--was set up an ”_aimable communisme_.” Is it possible to imagine a more extravagant distortion than the following, both in its general effect and in the audacious generalisation of a very special incident, itself inaccurately conceived of?--

Il parcourait ainsi la Galilee au milieu _d'une fete perpetuelle_.

Il se servait d'une mule, monture en Orient si bonne et si sure, et dont le grand oeil noir, ombrage de longs cils, a beaucoup de douceur. Ses disciples deployarent quelquefois autour de lui une pompe rustique, dont leurs vetements, tenant lieu de tapis, faisaient les frais. Ils les mettaient sur la mule qui le portait, ou les etendaient a terre sur son pa.s.sage.

History has seen strange hypotheses; but of all extravagant notions, that one that the world has been conquered by what was originally an idyllic gipsying party is the most grotesque. That these ”_pet.i.ts comites de bonnes gens_” though influenced by a great example and wakened out of their ”delicious pastoral” by a heroic death, should have been able to make an impression on Judaean faith, Greek intellect, and Roman civilisation, and to give an impulse to mankind which has lasted to this day, is surely one of the most incredible hypotheses ever accepted, under the desperate necessity of avoiding an unwelcome alternative.

M. Renan is willing to adopt everything in the Gospel history except what is miraculous. If he is difficult to satisfy as to the physical possibility or the proof of miracles, at least he is not hard to satisfy on points of moral likelihood; and he draws on his ample power of supposing the combination of moral opposites in order to get rid of the obstinate and refractory supernatural miracle. To some extent, indeed, he avails himself of that inexhaustible resource of unlimited guessing, by means of which he reverses the whole history, and makes it take a shape which it is hard to recognise in its original records. The feeding of the five thousand, the miracle described by all the four Evangelists, is thus curtly disposed of:--”Il se retira au desert.

Beaucoup de monde l'y suivit. _Grace a une extreme frugalite_ la troupe sainte y vecut; _on crut naturellement_ voir en cela un miracle.” This is all he has to say. But miracles are too closely interwoven with the whole texture of the Gospel history to be, as a whole, thus disposed of. He has, of course, to admit that miracles are so mixed up with it that mere exaggeration is not a sufficient account of them. But be bids us remember that the time was one of great credulity, of slackness and incapacity in dealing with matters of evidence, a time when it might be said that there was an innocent disregard of exact and literal truth where men's souls and affections were deeply interested. But, even supposing that this accounted for a belief in certain miracles growing up--which it does not, for the time was not one of mere childlike and uninquiring belief, but was as perfectly familiar as we are with the notion of false claims to miraculous power which could not stand examination--still this does not meet the great difficulty of all, to which he is at last brought. It is undeniable that our Lord professed to work miracles. They were not merely attributed to Him by those who came after Him. If we accept in any degree the Gospel account, He not only wrought miracles, but claimed to do so; and M. Renan admits it--that is, he admits that the highest, purest, most Divine person ever seen on earth (for all this he declares in the most unqualified terms) stooped to the arts of Simon Magus or Apollonius of Tyana. He was a ”thaumaturge”--”tard et a contre-coeur”--”avec une sorte de mauvaise humeur”--”en cachette”--”malgre lui”--”sentant le vanite de l'opinion”; but still a ”thaumaturge.” Moreover, He was so almost of necessity; for M. Renan holds that without the support of an alleged supernatural character and power, His work must have perished.

Everything, to succeed and be realised, must, we are told, be fortified with something of alloy. We are reminded of the ”loi fatale qui cond.a.m.ne l'idee a dechoir des qu'elle cherche a convertir les hommes.”

”Concevoir de bien, en efifet, ne suffit pas; il faut le faire reussir parmi les hommes. Pour cela, des voies moins pures sont necessaires.”

If the Great Teacher had kept to the simplicity of His early lessons, He would have been greater, but ”the truth would not have been promulgated.” ”He had to choose between these two alternatives, either renouncing his mission or becoming a 'thaumaturge.'” The miracles ”were a violence done to him by his age, a concession which was wrung from him by a pa.s.sing necessity.” And if we feel startled at such a view, we are reminded that we must not measure the sincerity of Orientals by our own rigid and critical idea of veracity; and that ”such is the weakness of the human mind, that the best causes are not usually won but by bad reasons,” and that the greatest of discoverers and founders have only triumphed over their difficulties ”by daily taking account of men's weakness and by not always giving the true reasons of the truth.”

L'histoire est impossible si l'on n'admet hautement qu'il y a pour la sincerite plusieurs mesures. Toutes les grandes choses se font par le peuple, or on ne conduit pas le peuple qu'en se pretant a ses idees. Le philosophe, qui sachant cela, s'isole et se retranche dans sa n.o.blesse, est hautement louable. Mais celui qui prend l'humanite avec ses illusions et cherche a agir sur elle et avec elle, ne saurait etre blame. Cesar savait fort bien qu'il n'etait pas fils de Venus; la France ne serait pas ce qu'elle est si l'on n'avait cru mille ans a la sainte ampoule de Reims. Il nous est facile a nous autres, impuissants que nous sommes, d'appeler cela mensonge, et fiers de notre timide honnetete, de traiter avec dedain les heros qui out accepte dans d'autres conditions la lutte de la vie. Quand nous aurons fait avec nos scrupules ce qu'ils firent avec leurs mensonges, nous aurons le droit d'etre pour eux severes.

Now let M. Renan or any one else realise what is involved, on his supposition, not merely, as he says, of ”illusion or madness,” but of wilful deceit and falsehood, in the history of Lazarus, even according to his lame and hesitating attempt to soften it down and extenuate it; and then put side by side with it the terms in which M. Renan has summed up the moral greatness of Him of whom he writes:--

La foi, l'enthousiasme, la constance de la premiere generation chretienne ne s'expliquent qu'en supposant a l'origine de tout le mouvement un homme de proportions colossales.... Cette sublime personne, qui chaque jour preside encore au destin du monde, il est permis de l'appeler divine, non en ce sens que Jesus ait absorbe tout le divin, mais en ce sens que Jesus est l'individu qui a fait faire a son espece le plus grand pas vers le divin....

Au milieu de cette uniforme vulgarite, des colonnes s'elevent vers le ciel et attestent une plus n.o.ble destinee. Jesus est la plus haute de ces colonnes qui montrent a l'homme d'ou il vient et ou il doit tendre. En lui s'est condense tout ce qu'il y a de bon et d'eleve dans notre nature.... Quels que puissent etre les phenomenes inattendus de l'avenir, Jesus ne sera pas surpa.s.se....

Tous les siecles proclameront qu'entre les fils des hommes il n'en est pas ne de plus grand que Jesus.

And of such an one we are told that it is a natural and reasonable view to take, not merely that He claimed a direct communication with G.o.d, which disordered reason could alone excuse Him for claiming, but that He based His whole mission on a pretension to such supernatural powers as a man could not pretend to without being conscious that they were delusions. The conscience of that age as to veracity or imposture was quite clear on such a point. Jew and Greek and Roman would have condemned as a deceiver one who, not having the power, took on him to say that by the finger of G.o.d he could raise the dead. And yet to a conscience immeasurably above his age, it seems, according to M. Renan, that this might be done. It is absurd to say that we must not judge such a proceeding by the ideas of our more exact and truth-loving age, when it would have been abundantly condemned by the ideas recognised in the religion and civilisation of the first century.

<script>