HISTORY OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS' CHRIST.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 10, 5 July 1873, Page 12

HISTORY OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS ' CHRIST.

BY THE ABBE J. E. DARRAS.

(Translated from the original French for the New Zealand Tablet,) HISTORICAL ABTD PHILOLOGICAL BASIS OB TUB BATIONALtSTIC SYSTBJt.

23. Haring explored the interior of the tomb where Jesu9 was supposed to be buried, let us see if the stone placed to close ill entrance is really so difficult to deal with. This philolological and scientific block— rolled to the door of the sepulchre — is it composed of plaster or of granite? I leave you to judge for yourselves. All the reasoning of the new exegetisfc may be reduced to the following formulas : " Jesus never conceived the thought of believing himself God : neithei did the immediate disciples by any moans intend to giro him that title. Divinity was ascribed to his memory retrospectirely, by a popular legend, springing from' the excited imagination of the multitude. This legend — a curious work, and to a osrtaiu extent reliable — was established towards the end of the I. century, o» an'origiuul groundwork really left by the Apostles, but so disfigured under a second-hand dressing that it is absolutely impossible to recognise the original traces, and to clear it, from the superstition* which smgtn'er ifc. Thus, the Gospels, su-h as we possess thorn, may at most afford the general outlines of th«j life of Je3us, but they cannot have the smallest historical value. We hove, ia respect to this, a leading testimony in tho first half of the 11. century. It is tlia evidence of Papias, Bishop of Hienpolis, a grave man, versed in traditions, who made it his life-long .«tuly to gather all that could b.e known of Jpsus personally. Having first declared that ia such matters he prefers oral traditions to books, Papias meutions two writings on the acts and discourses of Christ — Ist, a writing of Mark, interpreter of the Apoßtle St. Peter, — a short, incomplete work, not arranged in chronological order, — containing narratives and discourses composed from the informations and memoranda of the Apostle St. Peter ; 2nd, a collection of sentences, wiitten in Hebrew', by Matthew, and translated by each one as best he could. That these two workj, such as we read them, could be altogether the same as those read Ky Papias is no longer In the first place, because $h> writing of Matthew wns composed exclusively of discourses in Hebrew, of which he circulated translations differing somewhat one from fie other ; and, in the second place, because the writing of Mark and that af Matthew were for him perfectly distmct, drawn up without any previous understanding, and. it would seem, in two different languages. Now, in the present state of the texts, the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark present parallel portions so long and so perfectly identical that one mu*t suppose that the last compiler of the former had tho latter under his eyes, or that the last compiler of the latter had the former, or that both the 6'rie and the other copied the same prototype (1). It is theu well substantiated that we have neither the original compilation of Matthew nor of Mark. Our first two Gospels are merely compilations. Every one desired, indeed, to have a complete copy. He who had in his copy only discourses wished to have narratives also, and reciprocally. It n^ thus that in the Gospel according to Matthew are found thrown together all the anecdotes of Mark, and that the Gospel according to i Mark contains at present a number of passages out of the LDgia of Matthew (2). As to the writing of Luke, its histoiical value is far weakei still. Luke had probably under his eyes the biographical collection of Mark and the Logi.i of Matthew ; but he handles them very freely. In one place he blends together two anecdotes or two parables to make but one ; in another, he separates one to make two (3). It is a second-haml document. The fourth Gospel — that of John (1)— presents us an outline of the lite of Jesus, differing singularly frain that of the Synoptic authors. Hd attributea to Jesus, discourses, the tone, style, doctrine, and tenor of which have nothing in common with the Login reported by those writers. Quite a new mystical language is there unfolded — language of which tho Synoptic authors have not the least notion — (world, truth, life, li^ht, darkness). If Jesus had ever spoken in this style— which has nothing of Jewish, of Hebrew, of Talmudic, in it — how is i( that one alone among hia hearers should h ive so faithfully treajurecl up the secret ? (I) It is theu evident that the Gospels, such c a the, have come to out* hands, are not the original Gospels. We way and w> ought to reject their legend* — treat their tex^s as a monument of naivu credulity, which had completely disfigured the hietoi-ic JVsaa, up to the day on which tha rationalistic exegelisl happily ivuoiva aim to us.

1. Vie de Jeau*, Introd. 2. Vie de Jes'iß, Introd. 8. Via de Jesus, Introd. 1. Orig., in Matth., Comtn , Fragment 1.

SAINT PAPIAS. 24. What a rock on the tomb of Jesus are these formidable Logia •f Matthew, united in the anecdotes of Marl, reproduced by- Luke, and •nutted by John ! How resist the evidence of a " leading testimony of the first half of the TI. century rendered by a grave man—one versed id tradition, who«e life-long study had been to gather all that could T>e known of Jesus personally, and declaring that in such matters he prefers oral tradition to books V The critio has not even told us in this very explicit enlogium what miffht greatly enhance the value of the testimony that he invokes. Had he opened the Martyrology, he would have learnt tha* the Churoh renders public worship to the inemorv of St. Pnpim. Bishop of Hierapolis, contemporary and friend or St. Polycarp(2) Had he questioned the ccxxxii. Codex of the Mvnobiblon of Photius he would have disrovered that' St. Fapias, Bishop of Hieropoliß, is here honored with the title of martyr(3). Finally, the Bollandwts— whose works he .boasted at another period to have* read, «nd which he appear* since tohave quite'forgotten — would have brought tohis.memory that St. Papias. Bi«hop of Hierapolis, at first imprisoned with Onesinn s. disciple of St. Paul, was afterwards exiled for his ikith in the^ divinity of Jesus Christ. .Certainly,: I shall always yield belief to witnesses ready to sen.l their testimony with their blood ! Wow, here we see St. Papias. a grave man who had, in the year 105 of the Christian era. gathered together all that could be known of Jesus Christ personally, exnosing himself t) death by confessing tho divinity of Je««« at the tribunal of the Roman .Prefect, Tertullus(l) This is very different., we mu«t own, from the doctrine that has been imputed to him. Either St. Papias knew not what he wa* writing, or the learned rationalist has not rightly understood what Papias ha* written. There is no other possible alternative. But, how can we suppose that a professor of Hebrow, member of the Institute, philologist emeritus, has not known how to translate, without a wrong meaning, fifteen lines of Greek ? And, on the other hand, how can we admit thit. J t Partias would have allowed himself to be imprisoned, exiled, ponsiblv put to death, for the divinity of Jesus Christ, in which he did not believe ?

THB IiOGIA OP ST. HATTHBW.

2R. A commission of Hellenists, who should meet together to examine thn translation of those few lines of St. Fapias, would certainly not pronounce it to bo a miracle of science or precision. They might find, however, in its interpretation of the famous Logi» of Matthew, a phenomenon sufficiently striking to indemnify them for the absence* of any other prndiuy. • Losia, they s.»y, moans collection of sentences, and means nothing more " Tlie entire thesis ngaimt the ! Gospels, and consequently the whole doctrine of Rationalism, against the divinity of Jesus Christ, is based on this translation of a single word, the importance of which is clearly a leading point. If the translation is fnlse. the Gospels are historic texts, Jesu? Christ is God. To sneak the truth, the chances risked on the interpretation of a single word are too momentous. At no-time would the most shallow of the ancient heresiarchs have committed a like fnult ; he would not h»ve thus lightly consented to run so great a danger. The thesis was worthy of brine grounded on a more soli-1 hnsis. From the point of view of a hostile controversy, others hive known how to take a better ttanrl, and 1o phow themselves more formidable. But, after all, our century has distinguished itsalf sufficiently by its fall into the •navo of anti-Christian polemics. This lapse is registered in the Gosoel of Rationalism. Si much the worse for our renturv \ With good reason will posterity laugh it to scorn, as learned Germany has already done by the organ of M. Ewald. And this because the sense of the celebrated expression " Logia " is not in the least de<rr=>e circumsoribed in the exclusively grammatical signification of Collection of Sentences. Under the pen of the Apostolic writers, nnrl of their immediate successors, this word serves to denote, at one time, the holy Scripture in its entirety ; at another, the New Testament in particular. Thus, St. "Paul calls the Old Law, The Logia of Gort(l). Thus. St. Irenseus calls the Gospels, The Logia of the Lord (2). Tims, Clement of Alexandria gives them the name of Logia of truth (3), nnd designates the entire of the Scriptures by the generic term "Logion "(4). Thus. Origen giyes to the Gospels the same of divine Logia(6.) Thus, St. Papias himself wrote three books entitled, 'Exposition of the Logia ', (Gospels) 'of the Lord.' As if to anticipate the onslaught that philology would make on this ambiguous v ord, St. Papiap, in speaking of the Gospel of Mark— that Gospel, which, in the syatem of the modern exegetist, was to contain ©nly anecdotes— makes no difficulty about giving it the title of of the Lord ; so that St. Papias gives to the Gospel of •^Matthew, containing, they nay, only sentences, exactly the same namo as to the Gospel of Mark, containing, they say, only anecdotes. In the face of these facts, what becomes of the chief point of distinction invented by the new translator, and of the triumphant antithesis which was to subvert faith in the Gospel narrative, by destroying, at ita Tery basis fnitli in the divinity of Jesus Christ P And, if rationalism dpsired to kstovr why the expression Logia was raised, in the stylo of the Apostolic writers, to the same level as the term Scriptures — alike Ponseorate^—.Olement of Alexandria would make answer that the "Logo*, the "Word of God, come forth from t! c splendots of the Father, more radiant than the sun, having made known to us this truth on the divine essence, by His teaching and miracles, is become for us the source of all life, of all knowledge, and of all light !"(6). Consequently, the revelation of the Scriptures in their entirety, and that of the Grppel apart, ought to bear the name of ita author. The " Logos"— the divine Word— has been given in the Logia. Without doubt, that bears a close resemblance to the In Principio of John, 9on of Zebedee : we will not deny it. But, if there is no analog between such a doctrine and the In Principio of materialism, tlie Apostles and Doctors of tho Church cannot be responsible for if-.

1. Vie da Jesui, liitrnd. 2. Martyrol, rom. xxii, Pebrnar. 8. Photii, Myiiobiblon cod. ccxxxii. 1. Holland, 100. citat. 1. Rom., cap. Hi. 2. 2. Iranai, Advera. haras. Proosniium, Patrol, graeo. S. Glem. Alexandria; Cohortatio a<l Gentes, Patrol, graec. 4. Clem. Alexandria" Strrnrn',. lib. ii., «ap. x., Patrol, graeo. 5. Origeu, iv Matth vers. 19. ' 6. Clem. Alex*

THB EITTIBB TBXT O* ST. TPAPIAS. ' * 26. The following is the text of St. Papias in its integrity. The 1 new exegetist, according to fhis usual custom, in-like cases, has taken care to 'avoid reproducing it. In Book 111.,r0f tho " llcolesiMtioal History"' of Eusebius, the xxxix and last chapter is entitled:—* ' Works of Papias.'(l). " The hooka of Papias are to the nuntber of five," says Eusebiu*. They bear the title, ' Exposition of the Logia' (Gospels) 'of the Lord. At their opening, the author expresses him* self thus : — "'You will take it in good part that I transmit to you" the teaching which I have received from .the ancients, th 9 memory o( which I have carefully preserved, and to the truth of which I bear witness. I have always adhered — not like the multitude — to those masters who speak the most but to such as <*pc>ak the' truth ; not to those who bring forward strange doctrines, but to those who transmit the teaching proposed to onr faith by the Lord, and thus proceeding" from Truth itself. Every time that T chanced to meet any disciples of the Apostles,' l eagerly inquired of them what they -had 'learned from their masters. What did Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thimas, Jame«, John, Matthew, discburse on habitually?-^! asked,. What said Aristion and John 1 the Ancient— those disciples of. Christ'? :J{T.t was thai 1 ■poke, believing I should' gather 'ntore fruit 'from the"> words of witnesses still surviving than from the reading of books." If ttai rationalist translator had perused this exordium of >8t PapieM ho would have been disquieted no doubt, at bearing " a grave man," « "man versed in tradition." a witness "of 'the first 1 hah? of the If. century," identifyjesus Christ with " Troth' 1 itself.'* - Luckily for hit honesty, the mddern exegetist did 'not read this exordium. He teems to have confined himself solely to what follows. " Papias," continues the historian Eusebius, " records, in his books, some narrations and some traditions concerning our Lord, which he heard-'from-Aristion and John the Ancient." This information will suffice for those who wish' ■ to study these matters' more profoundly. But, I think it useful to repro* j duce'here the very words that he devotes to the Evangelist St. Mark: — *' John the Ancient, related," says Papias, " T that Mark, interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly all that he had learned from thit lastall which he faithfully kept in his memory. Thus, he was unable to follow th* precise order in which Christ spoke and acted, for he had neither heard nor followed the Lord in quality of disciple ; but, at I have told \o\x, he accompanied Peter, who disposed his teachings with the view of being useful to his audience, 'and not with the design of following the order of the Gospels of the Lord. • Thus, Mark has failed in nothing ; he wrote from memory, solely intent on- allowing nothing of what he had heard to escape, and , on, introdsgittg- into it I nothing false." This, is what Papias relates of ])fark. With regard to Matthew, he expresses himself thus : — " Matthew wrote the Go-pels of the Lord in the Hebrew language. Each one was obliged then to interpret them according to his ability ."(l). • That is to say, that tho faithful— Greeks and Latins — to whom the Febrew tongue was unknown, were forced to recur to translations to read- the Gospel of St. Matthew.

BBAti MEANING OF THE WOBD LOOIA.

27. The reader has under his eyes thp testimony of St. Papias. The Logia of Matthew there spoken of are "correlative with the Logh of Mark ; the evident distinction clearly pointed out as existing between the two Gospels loaves no room for even a trace of suspicion. We ask ourselves by what subtlety of intuition the new exegotist has been able, from the words of St. Papias, to come to the conclusion that " the writing of Mark was short and incomplete." There is nothing in the precious text of the Bishop of Hierapoßs to authorise such a conclusion. The pretended Anecdotes of Mark, and the Collection "of Sentences of Matthew, are then; gratnicous inventions,- the credit of which is nowise due to St. Papias, the discovery of which rests on an entirely modern misinterpretation. After that, are you really authorised in awarding to the Gospel of St Liike a p'atort of historic nullity by calumniating it as being only a compilation of , the < Anecdotes of Mark and the Logia of Matthew ? la not St. John sufficiently justified in not having known the famous Logia, seeing that they, never had existence save in tho deluded imagination of the 1 recenc'%xegetist ? What! here, then, is all the objection that can be urged ajainst th« divinity of Jesus Christ, after twenty centuries of denial, difficulties, and sophisms, collected with an indefatigable perseverance, heaped together with all the artifice of modern ingenuity. Candidly, did:you believe that a stone such .a* this, '. rolled to the door of th» sepulchre, could have hindered the resurrection of- Jesiu Christ ? Th» Logia of Ma'thew and the Logia of Mark are alike the Gospel of Jesuy Christ. St. Papias spoke as the Church ha* bepn speaking for the la3t eighteen • > .enturi<33; he- confessed the faith of Jesus Christ in the" midst of torments, like St. Peter, St. Paul* and all the martyrs, even tothe missionaries, who, up to the present day, water with thai? blood the remote countries of Oceanioa and of India. AH your fuity scaffolding falls to pieces in presence of these facts. Tli9re has never" been a pn vitive Gospel on which a legendary and posthumous divinity was engrafted. The four canonic tl Gospels remnm in their inviolably majesry. Wo may be permitted to repeat to-day the words which Origen wrote in the year 2lO<: " Here is what tradition teaches me,' r says the gre it doctor, " on the subject of. the four Gospels, alone* admitted as authentic by tho Churcn of Gel, spread over, the whole universe. The fir«t wan written by Matthew, originally a publicanlater ou, an apostle of Jesus Christ. He composed it in Hebrew, a* was the custom of the Jews converted to the faith. • The 1 second is th# Gospel according to Mark ; this latter wrote it down as her heard 1 it propounded by Piter in his discourses, Iv his Calholicr Epistle Peter renders the follow ing testimony to St. Mark r ' The Church of Babylon and Mark, my son, send you tho salut'ition of peace.' Tho third Gospel, written by Luke for the use of tho Gentiles, v commanded by St. Paul. The fourth Gospel is that of St. John."

1. EiMebius Hist Ecclm , lib. Hi., cap. xzix. 1. Euseb , Hist. Ecclea., lib. iii., e\p. xxxix.