Part 1 (2/2)

Philo lived, it is true, in quite a different province of Judaism to Jesus, but, like hined at Jerusalem; Philo is truly the elder brother of Jesus He was sixty-two years old when the Prophet of Nazareth was at the height of his activity, and he survived him at least ten years What a pity that the chances of life did not conduct hiht us!

Josephus, writing specially for pagans, is not so candid His short notices of Jesus, of John the Baptist, of Judas the Gaulonite, are dry and colorless We feel that he seeks to present these movements, so profoundly Jewish in character and spirit, under a forible to Greeks and Ro Jesus[1] to be authentic It is perfectly in the style of Josephus, and if this historian has made mention of Jesus, it is thus that he must have spoken of him We feel only that a Christian hand has retouched the passage, has added a feords--without which it would almost have been blasphemous[2]--has perhaps retrenched or modified some expressions[3] It must be recollected that the literary fortune of Josephus was s as essential documents of their sacred history They made, probably in the second century, an edition corrected according to Christian ideas[4] At all events, that which constitutes the immense interest of Josephus on the subject which occupies us, is the clear light which he throws upon the period Thanks to him, Herod, Herodias, Antipas, Philip, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate are personages e can touch with the finger, and e see living before us with a striking reality

[Footnote 1: _Ant_, XVIII iii 3]

[Footnote 2: ”If it be lawful to call him a man”]

[Footnote 3: In place of [Greek: christos outos en], he certainly had these [Greek: christos outos elegeto]--Cf _Ant_, XX ix 1]

[Footnote 4: Eusebius (_Hist Eccl_, i 11, and _De Jesus asread it in Josephus Origen (_Contra Celsus_, i 47; ii 13) and Eusebius (_Hist

Eccl_, ii 23) cite another Christian interpolation, which is not found in any of the manuscripts of Josephus which have come down to us]

The Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, especially the Jewish part of the Sibylline verses, and the Book of Enoch, together with the Book of Daniel, which is also really an Apocrypha, have a primary importance in the history of the develop of the conceptions of Jesus respecting the kingdom of God The Book of Enoch especially, which was ives us the key to the expression ”Son of Man,” and to the ideas attached to it The ages of these different books, thanks to the labors of Alexander, Ewald, Dillreed in placing the compilation of the most important of them in the second and first centuries before Jesus Christ The date of the Book of Daniel is still es in which it is written, the use of Greek words, the clear, precise, dated announcement of events, which reach even to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the incorrect descriptions of Ancient Babylonia, there given, the general tone of the book, which in no respect recalls the writings of the captivity, but, on the contrary, responds, by a crowd of analogies, to the beliefs, the ination of the time of the Seleucidae; the Apocalyptic form of the visions, the place of the book in the Hebrew canon, out of the series of the prophets, the oyrics of Chapter xlix of Ecclesiasticus, in which his position is all but indicated, and many other proofs which have been deduced a hundred times, do not permit of a doubt that the Book of Daniel was but the fruit of the great excite the Jews by the persecution of Antiochus It is not in the old prophetical literature that we must class this book, but rather at the head of Apocalyptic literature, as the first model of a kind of composition, after which come the various Sibylline poems, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of John, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Fourth Book of Esdras

[Footnote 1: Jude Epist 14]

In the history of the origin of Christianity, the Tallected I think with M Geiger, that the true notion of the circumstances which surrounded the develope compilation, in which so nificant scholasticis in the main folloo parallel ways, the history of the one cannot well be understood without the history of the other Innumerable important details in the Gospels find, moreover, their cohtfoot, Schoettgen, Buxtorf, and Otho contained already a mass of information on this point I have iinal all the citations which I have adle exception The assistance which has been given me for this part of my task by a learned Israelite, M Neubauer, well versed in Talo further, and to clear up the most intricate parts of my subject by new researches

The distinction of epochs is herefroht to it as much discernment as is possible in the actual state of these studies Dates so recent will excite so persons habituated to accord value to a document only for the period in which it ritten But such scruples would here be out of place The teaching of the Jews from the Asmonean epoch down to the second century was principally oral We ence by the habits of an age ofThe Vedas, and the ancient Arabian poees from memory, and yet these compositions present a very distinct and delicate form

In the Talmud, on the contrary, the form has no value Let us add that before the _Mishnah_ of Judas the Saint, which has caused all others to be forgotten, there were attempts at compilation, the commencement of which is probably much earlier than is commonly supposed The style of the Talmud is that of loose notes; the collectors did no more probably than classify under certain titles the enor in the different schools for generations

It re theraphies of the Founder of Christianity, must naturally hold the first place in a _Life of Jesus_ A complete treatise upon the compilation of the Gospels would be a work of itself Thanks to the excellent researches of which this question has been the object during thirty years, a probleed insurh it leaves room for many uncertainties, fully suffices for the necessities of history We shall have occasion to return to this in our Second Book, the co been one of the most important facts for the future of Christianity in the second half of the first century We will touch here only a single aspect of the subject, that which is indispensable to the cos to the portraiture of the apostolic tiree the data furnished by the Gospelsto rational principles[1]

[Footnote 1: Persons ish to read more ample explanations, may consult, in addition to the work of M Reville, previously cited, the writings of Reuss and Scherer in the _Revue de Theologie_, vol x, xi, xv; new series, ii, iii, iv; and that of Nicolas in the _Revue Germanique_, Sept and Dec, 1862; April and June, 1863]

That the Gospels are in part legendary, is evident, since they are full of ends have not all the same value No one doubts the principal features of the life of Francis d'assisi, although we meet the supernatural at every step No one, on the other hand, accords credit to the _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, because it ritten long after the time of the hero, and purely as a romance At what time, by what hands, under what circumstances, have the Gospels been compiled? This is the primary question upon which depends the opinion to be formed of their credibility

Each of the four Gospels bears at its head the nae, known either in the apostolic history, or in the Gospel history itself These four personages are not strictly given us as the authors The for to Mark,”

”according to Luke,” ”according to John,” do not imply that, in the inning to end by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,[1] theyfro their authority It is clear that, if these titles are exact, the Gospels, without ceasing to be in part legendary, are of great value, since they enable us to go back to the half century which followed the death of Jesus, and in two instances, even to the eye-witnesses of his actions

[Footnote 1: In the sa to the Hebrews,” ”The Gospel according to the Egyptians”]

Firstly, as to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible The Gospel of Luke is a regular composition, founded on anterior documents[1] It is the work of a man who selects, prunes, and combines The author of this Gospel is certainly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles[2]

Now, the author of the Acts is a companion of St Paul,[3] a title which applies to Luke exactly[4] I know that ; but one thing, at least, is beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts was a eneration, and that is sufficient for our object The date of this Gospel can moreover be determined with much precision by considerations drawn from the book itself The twenty-first chapter of Luke, inseparable froe of Jerusalem, and but a short tiround; for we are concerned with a ritten entirely by the same hand, and of the most perfect unity

[Footnote 1: Luke i 1-4]

[Footnote 2: _Acts_ i 1 Compare Luke i 1-4]

[Footnote 3: From xvi 10, the author represents himself as eye-witness]